CODDINGTOWN TARGET STORE

Transcription

CODDINGTOWN TARGET STORE
900 Coddingtown Center, Santa Rosa, CA
Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Prepared by:
GHD Inc.
2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150
(707) 523-1010
May 10, 2012
NOTICE OF INTENT
DATE:
May 10, 2012
TO:
Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties
FROM:
William Rose, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department of
Community Development of the City of Santa Rosa has prepared an Initial Study on the following project:
Project Name:
Coddingtown Target Store
Location:
900 Coddingtown Center, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, APNs: 012-049-045.
Property Description:
The Project would be located at Coddingtown Mall in northwest Santa Rosa (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map).
Coddingtown Mall was constructed in the early 1960s and is located approximately 0.2 mile west of U.S.
Highway 101, accessible via the Guerneville Road/Steele Lane interchange. The Project would be constructed
on the south side of the mall structure in the space currently occupied by the vacant Gottschalks Department
Store and other smaller retail shops. The Project site encompasses approximately 8.11 acres of the 38-acre
mall parcel. The site is flat and impervious with the exception of small landscaped areas and trees located in
the on-site parking lots. The site is located within the Santa Rosa Urban Service Area and is connected to
Santa Rosa’s water and wastewater systems. The property has a General Plan land use designation of Retail
and Business Services and is zoned as General Commercial (GC), with the exception of a portion of the
parking lot, which is zoned as Office Commercial (CO).
Project Description:
The Simon Property Group (Applicant) is proposing renovations to a portion of Coddingtown Mall. The
renovations would include replacement of the vacant Gottschalks Department Store building and other smaller
south-facing retail shops and construction of an approximately 143,487 square-foot single-story Target store.
The renovations would also include the two south-facing mall entrances and infrastructure improvements,
including construction of new underground utilities, new and reconstructed parking lots, and new landscaping –
all within the Project site. No off-site traffic or utility improvements are required for the Project.
The Project would require a Conditional Use Permit to be considered by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission
and then Design Review, which would be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The Project would also
require building and grading permits from the City. If approved, Project construction would take approximately
15 months for completion.
Environmental Issues:
The Project would result in potentially significant impacts Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and
Noise. The Project impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of
recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with existing Municipal Code requirements or City
standards. Recommended measures are summarized in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (MMRP) and Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration document has been prepared in consultation with local and state responsible and trustee
agencies and in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A 30-day (thirty-day) public review period shall commence on May 10, 2012. Written comments must be sent
to the City of Santa Rosa, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue,
Room 3, Santa Rosa CA 95404 by June 12, 2012. The City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project merits tentatively scheduled for
June 14, 2012 in the Santa Rosa City Council Chamber at City Hall (100 Santa Rosa Avenue).
Correspondence and comments can be delivered to William Rose, AICP, Senior Planner, at the address
above, by phone: (707) 543-3253, or email: [email protected]
Table of Contents
1. Project Information .............................................................................................3 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING.............................................................................. 4 1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES...................................................................... 12 1.4 PROJECT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................ 14 1.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................................................................................... 14 1.6 CEQA REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 14 2. Determination ...................................................................................................16 3. Environmental Effects of the Project ................................................................17 I. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................... 17 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................... 21 III. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................... 23 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 28 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 32 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................... 36 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISS,ONS ................................................................................... 40 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................. 45 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................... 50 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................................... 54 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 55 XII. NOISE .............................................................................................................................. 56 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................................... 65 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................... 66 XV. RECREATION .................................................................................................................. 67 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ........................................................................................ 68 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS............................................................................. 79 4. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................81 5. Preparers .........................................................................................................83 6. References .......................................................................................................84 City of Santa Rosa
Coddingtown Target Admin Draft IS/Proposed MND
i
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
TABLES
Table PD-1. Modifications to Existing Retail Space .............................................................................. 4 Table PD-2. Green Technologies and Design Components ............................................................... 12 Table PD-3. Demolition Waste and Recycling .................................................................................... 12 Table PD-4. Demolition and Construction Haul Volumes and Haul Truck Trips ................................. 13 Table PD-5. Construction Equipment .................................................................................................. 13 Table PD-6. Typical Target Store Service Demands .......................................................................... 14 Table III-1. Health Risk Assessment Results for Construction Activities ............................................ 27 Table VIII-1.Hazardous Materials Sites within ¼ Mile of Project Site .................................................. 47 Table XII-1. City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code – Ambient Base Noise Levels ................................. 57 Table XII-2. Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 60 Table XVI-1. Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations .................. 70 Table XVI-2. Weekday Trip Generation Summary (Existing plus Project Conditions) ......................... 71 Table XVI-3. Saturday Trip Generation Summary (Existing plus Project Conditions) ......................... 72 Table XVI-4. Summary of Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Calculations ................................................................................................................................ 72 Table XVI-5. Reduction in Trips due to Project, as Compared to General Plan Buildout Weekday Trip
Generation Summary (Future Cumulative Conditions) .............................................................. 74 Table XVI-6. Reduction in Trips due to Project, as Compared to General Plan Buildout Saturday Trip
Generation Summary (Future Cumulative Conditions) .............................................................. 74 FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 – Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 – South/Front Elevation ............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4 – West/Left Elevation ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 – East/Right Elevation ............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 6 – Parking and Landscape Plan .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 7 – Project Visual Simulation..................................................................................................... 19 APPENDICIES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Preliminary Health Risk Analysis
Historic Resources Evaluation
Greenhouse Gas Analysis URBEMIS Data
Traffic Impact Study
City of Santa Rosa
ii
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
1. Project Information
1. Project Title
2. Lead Agency Name & Address
City of Santa Rosa
Community Development Department
Planning Division
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3
Santa Rosa, California 95404
3. Contact Person & Information
William Rose, AICP, Senior Planner
Telephone number: (707) 543-3253
Email: [email protected]
4. Project Location
The Project site is located in the City of Santa Rosa,
Sonoma County, California, at 900 Coddingtown Center,
Assessor’s Parcel No. 012-049-045
5. Project Sponsor's Name &
Address
Simon Property Group
225 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
6. General Plan Designation
Retail and Business Services; Office
7. Zoning
General Commercial (GC), Office Commercial (CO)
8. Description of Project
Construct and operate an approximately 143,487 squarefoot Target retail store, renovate two existing mall
entrances, and demolish the former Gottschalks building
and other smaller south-facing retail shops.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting
The Coddingtown Mall is bordered to the north by
Guerneville Road and lands zoned and used for office
and commercial space. To the east is Cleveland Avenue
and U.S. Highway 101. To the south is Edwards Avenue
and lands zoned and used for office and commercial
space, single-family residences, and rural residential. To
the west is Range Avenue, along with lands zoned and
used for office and commercial space, planned
development, and multi-family residential.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval Is Required
The Project would require a Conditional Use Permit to be
considered by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission and
then Design Review, which would be reviewed by the
Design Review Board. The Project would require
demolition, building, grading and utility permits from the
City. No other public agency approvals are required.
City of Santa Rosa
3
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
1.1
PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project would be located at the Coddingtown Mall in northwest Santa Rosa (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map).
Coddingtown Mall is located approximately 0.2 mile west of U.S. Highway 101, accessible via the Guerneville
Road/Steele Lane interchange. The Project would be constructed on the south side of the main mall structure in
the space formerly occupied by the Gottschalks Department Store and other smaller retail shops. The Project site
encompasses approximately 8.11 acres of the 38-acre mall parcel.
Coddingtown Mall currently contains approximately 55 stores, including Macy’s, JC Penney, Whole Foods, Old
Navy, and smaller retail and personal service shops. The mall has an existing gross leasable area1 (GLA) of
854,225 square feet and is surrounded by additional detached stores and office buildings. The total existing GLA
comprised by the mall and surrounding buildings is 914,027 square feet, with 3,465 parking spaces, for a total of
3.79 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA.
Figure 2, Existing Site Plan, shows the layout of the Coddingtown Mall, including structures, parking, and
circulation features. Access to Coddingtown Mall is provided by Guerneville Road/Steele Lane on the north,
Cleveland Avenue on the east, Edwards Avenue on the south, and Range Avenue on the west. The Mall as a
whole is flat and impervious with the exception of small landscaped areas and trees located in the on-site parking
lots. The site is connected to the City’s water and wastewater systems. The property has a General Plan land
use designation of Retail and Business Services; it is zoned for General Commercial (GC) uses, with the
exception of a portion of the parking lot which is zoned for Office Commercial (CO) uses.
1.2
PROPOSED PROJECT
The Simon Property Group (Applicant) is proposing to construct and operate an approximately 143,487 squarefoot retail store, renovate two existing mall entrances, and demolish the former Gottschalks building and other
smaller south-facing retail shops (see Figure 2). At this time, this retail space is proposed to be a Target Store. It
should be noted that the necessary agreements between Target Stores and the owners of Coddingtown Mall are
not yet final, and a different retail tenant could potentially occupy this space. The objectives of the Project are to
renovate the Coddingtown Mall to enhance retail activity and to provide a new anchor tenant for the mall to
replace the vacant Gottschalks store. On-site improvements would include utility connections, a reconfigured
parking lot, lighting, and new landscaping.
Table PD-1 shows the proposed modifications to the size of the existing retail space.
Table PD-1. Modifications to Existing Retail Space
Structure
Change (square feet)
Demolition
Gottschalks
-154,877
Other Small Shops
-46,754
Total Demolition
-201,631
Construction
Target
+143,487
NET CHANGE
-58,144
Source: Simon Property Group, October 26, 2011.
1
Gross leasable area is a term applied to commercial properties to indicate the amount of floor space available to be rented, defined as the
total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use.
City of Santa Rosa
4
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
0
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
30
60
120
Miles
1 in = 50 miles
0
0.5
1
LEGEND
2
1 in = 1 mile
Miles
PROJECT SITE
CITY LIMITS
Paper Size 8 1/2 x 11
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
\\corp\WKProjects\SRO\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\08-GIS\Maps\Figures\Vicinity Map.mxd
©
Simon Properties
Coddington Target Store
VICINITY MAP
2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150, Santa Rosa, CA T 707 523 1010
2012. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability
and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate,
incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Data source: Project Location Map: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, et. al. Vicinity Map: 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers; Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department, 2010. Created by:cphlegar
Job Number
Revision
Date
1250611001
B
17 Feb 2012
Figure 1
F 707 527 8679 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com
W. STEELE LN.
GUERNEVILLE RD.
ILLINOIS AVE.
US 101
N D AVE.
A
ED W
0
Paper Size ANSI B
200
LEGEND
400
Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
Target Store Footprint
Approximate Limits of Construction Work
J:\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\08-GIS\Maps\Figures\Site Plan.mxd
© 2012. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind
(whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by:rremillard
ARMORY DR.
CLEVELA
RN
E
LL
.
RANGE AVE.
E
GU
I
EV
RD
S
RD
.
AVE
Site Plan
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 707 523 1010
Job Number
Revision
Date
F 707 527 8679
1250611001
A
03 May 2012
Figure 2
W www.ghd.com
The Target store would provide approximately 143,487 square feet of retail space. The front of the store would
be approximately 490 feet in length, with general building heights ranging from 26 to 35 feet. The tallest feature
of the Target building would be an architectural feature with the Target logo at 50 feet in height, located near the
eastern edge of the store. The store front would include concrete walkways, landscaping, seating, lighting,
spherical bollards, bike racks, cart storage areas, and waste containers. The store’s loading dock area would be
on the east side of the building, with space for up to four trucks. Figures 3 through 5 show the existing
Gottschalks store fronts with the corresponding Target store elevations.
The surface parking lot located to the south of the building site would be reconfigured and would provide 327
parking stalls, including 12 handicap spaces. The reconfigured lot would be interspersed with landscaping,
mulched areas, and shade trees, including flowering cherry, raywood ash, crape myrtle, orange sedge, barberry,
and Eve Case coffeeberry. Figure 6 shows the proposed parking and landscape plan. Also for fire suppression,
the existing 8-inch water line extending through the site from Range Avenue would be upgraded to a 12-inch line.
If appropriate easements cannot be secured for the upgrade from Range Avenue, then this fire suppression
supply would be provided from a water line in Edwards Avenue to the south. The work associated with this
upgrade is anticipated to occur within the periphery of the larger mall site.
The Project would result in a net reduction of approximately 21,785 square feet of impervious surfaces at the site
(from 344,806 square feet pre-construction to 323,021 square feet post-construction). The reduction in
impervious services would result in additional landscaped areas on-site (from 8,280 square feet pre-construction
to 30,065 square feet post-construction). In these new landscape areas, the Project would incorporate low impact
development (LID) measures in accordance with the City of Santa Rosa’s Standard Urban Storm Water
Management Plan (SUSMP). The City’s SUSMP prioritizes the use of LID and the capture of small storm volume
for infiltration on-site. The Project’s Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan incorporates the following LID
measures into the Project design:

vegetated swales;

bioretention basins;

flow-through planters; and

inlet filters.
The Project would also renovate two existing mall entries, one to the west of the new Target store near JC
Penney and the other to the east near Macy’s. These entry corridors would include new concrete walkways,
seating, landscaping, and lighting. The west entry area would include a landscape filtration area to capture and
treat storm water runoff. The east entry area would include a new crosswalk and ramps. Existing overhangs
would be removed and new swing and sliding doors, screen walls for loading docks, and wood panel signs with
the Coddingtown Mall name would be installed. These entry point designs would echo those currently being
renovated as part of another project on the north side of the mall.
Green technologies and design components to be integrated into the Target store are summarized in Table PD-2.
City of Santa Rosa
7
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
EXISTING SOUTH/FRONT ELEVATION
SOUTH/FRONT ELEVATION
N
LEGEND
South/Front
Elevation
J:\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\Figures\South Front Elevation.indd April 10, 2012 9:45 AM
Job Number
Revision
Date
1250611001
A
04-2012
Figure 3
2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa California 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 W www.ghd.com
EXISTING WEST/LEFT ELEVATION
WEST/LEFT ELEVATION
N
LEGEND
West/Left
Elevation
J:\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\Figures\West Left Elevation.indd April 10, 2012 9:46 AM
Job Number
Revision
Date
1250611001
A
04-2012
Figure 4
EXISTING EAST/RIGHT ELEVATION
EAST/RIGHT ELEVATION
N
LEGEND
East/Right
Elevation
J:\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\Figures\East Right Elevation.indd April 10, 2012 9:46 AM
Job Number
Revision
Date
1250611001
A
04-2012
Figure 5
N
LEGEND
Parking and
Landscape Plan
J:\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\Figures\Parking Landscape Plan.indd April 10, 2012 9:44 AM
Job Number
Revision
Date
1250611001
A
04-2012
Figure 6
Table PD-2. Green Technologies and Design Components
Energy Efficiency
Lighting
Plumbing
Construction
Materials
Energy Management
System
Energy Efficient Heating
and Cooling
Energy Efficient Sales
Floor Lighting
White Reflective Roofs
Lighting Controls
Exterior Signage LED
Lighting
Refrigerated Case LED
Low Flow Sensor
Faucets
Low Flow Plumbing
Fixtures
Metered Plumbing
Fixtures
Construction Waste
Recycling
Low VOC Construction
Materials
Recycled Steel and
FSC Wood
Flooring/Green Label
Plus Products
1.3
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction would take approximately 15 months, including six months for on-site demolition and grading and
nine months for sitework and building construction. Construction would be anticipated to begin in July 2012 and
continue through September 2013. External construction work would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00
PM, seven days a week. Once the building’s shell is completed, interior construction activities would occur from
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, as allowed by the City’s Municipal Code Section 17-16.030.
The construction process would begin with removal of conflicting above and below-ground infrastructure.
Reconstruction of the parking lot would require removal of existing vegetation, including approximately 115
landscape trees. Three existing older trees located within the existing parking lot would be retained and
approximately 85 trees would be planted per the Project’s landscape plan (see Figure 6).
Stores located immediately adjacent to the demolition area would be temporarily closed during building
demolition. Demolition would be performed in a manner to minimize traffic disturbance and utility disruption. As
summarized in Table PD-3, demolition would generate a total of approximately 10,460 tons of construction waste,
including concrete from footings and floor slabs, metal from building structures, asphalt/concrete from the parking
lot, and other miscellaneous construction and demolition debris. Demolition waste diversion would be provided
for approximately 88 percent of the demolition waste, which would include off-haul and recycling. Building
demolition waste not diverted would be removed and disposed of at a local approved landfill or disposal area.
Table PD-3. Demolition Waste and Recycling
Material
Demolition Weight
(Tons)
Waste Diversion Weight
(Tons)
Concrete
6,845
6,160
Asphalt/Concrete
1,800
1,620
Steel
865
779
Miscellaneous Demo Waste
950
665
10,460
9,224
Total
Recycling Percentage
88%
Source: Codding Construction, Projected Diversion Report, February 22, 2012.
City of Santa Rosa
12
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Site grading would involve excavation for the new building foundation, parking areas, and water line upgrades to
ensure adequate fire flow to the site. The existing pavement surface would be removed as necessary for the
construction of the building foundation and site improvements. It is estimated that Project construction would
disturb approximately 8 acres and would result in the excavation of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of soil. Onsite soils suitable for use as fill would be reused on-site, with any non-suitable soils being disposed of at a local
approved landfill or disposal area. Approximately 3,200 net cubic yards of fill material would be needed for site
grading. The estimated construction-phase haul volumes and haul truck trips are shown in Table PD-4.
Table PD-4. Demolition and Construction Haul Volumes and Haul Truck Trips
Material
Tons
Cubic Yards
Haul Truck Trips
(20-Cubic Yard Vehicle)
Concrete
6,845
3,380
169
Asphalt/Concrete
1,800
950
48
Steel
865
130
6
Miscellaneous
Demolition Waste
950
705
35
3,200
160
Demolition
Construction
Fill
--Total
Note:
418
The following weight to volume assumptions were used to convert demolition waste from tons to cubic yards:
concrete was assumed to weight 150 lbs per cubic foot; asphalt/concrete was assumed to weigh 140 lbs per cubic
foot; steel was assumed to weigh 500 lbs per cubic foot; and miscellaneous construction debris was assumed to
weigh 100 lbs per cubic foot. Sources: ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures;
Reade Advanced Materials website: http://www.reade.com/
The number of construction-related vehicles traveling to and from the Project site would vary on a daily basis.
During Project demolition and site grading, it is assumed that the peak number of haul trucks expected on any
one day would be approximately 8 one-way truck trips per hour, or 64 one-way haul truck trips per day. In
addition to haul truck traffic, an average of 40 one-way vehicle trips per day is estimated for the construction crew,
with a maximum of 100 one-way vehicle trips per day during peak construction.
During construction, a temporary staging area would be established within the parking lot to be reconfigured. The
staging area would be used for delivery and storage of building materials and as a contractor parking area.
During the estimated 15-month construction period, construction staging would result in a temporary loss of
approximately 200 parking spaces.
The types of construction equipment that would likely be used during construction are listed in Table PD-5.
Table PD-5. Construction Equipment
Typical Equipment
Number
Dozer
1
Grader
1
Roller
1
Paver
1
Wheeled Loader
1
City of Santa Rosa
13
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Typical Equipment
Number
Track-Hoe
1
20-ton Truck Crane
1
Long Reach Fork Lift
1
Dump Trucks
2
Electric Manlifts
8
High Reach Gas Manlift
1
1.4
PROJECT OPERATIONS
Following construction, normal open business hours would be 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM Monday through Saturday
and 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM on Sunday. After hours maintenance and stocking would occur between 11:00 PM and
8:00 AM Monday through Saturday and 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Sunday. Special holiday hours would occur
the week before Thanksgiving through December 26th, with the store open from 4:00 AM to midnight Monday
through Saturday and 8:00 AM to midnight on Sunday. The store would be closed on Easter, Thanksgiving Day,
and Christmas Day.
The workforce for the proposed Target store would consist of approximately 150 to 200 employees. The store’s
loading dock area would be located on the east side of the building, with space for up to four trucks. The
anticipated electricity, gas, water, and sewer demands of the new Target store are summarized in Table PD-6.
Table PD-6. Typical Target Store Service Demands
Utility
Typical Demand
Electricity
187,000 kilowatt hours per month
Natural Gas
2,800-3,900 cubic feet per hour
Water
3,000 gallons per day (excluding irrigation use)
Sewer
3,000 gallons per day
Source: Target Developer’s Guide V2.11
Mechanical equipment that could result in operational noise would include rooftop air-conditioning units, rooftop
cooling and heating units for the market area, rooftop condenser units, and a trash compactor adjacent to the
loading docks. Emergency power would be provided by a natural gas / propane powered 100 kilowatt
(approximately 134 horsepower) back-up generator.
1.5
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A design alternative considered for the Project was rotating the Target store footprint 90 degrees from its existing
east-west orientation to a north-south orientation. This alternative would have the same footprint as the proposed
Target store, however, would have likely required more demolition of the parking lot than the proposed Project. In
addition, the east-west orientation of the proposed Project results in more direct access from the parking lot into
the Target store entrance and a shorter route for pedestrians walking around the south side of the mall. For these
reasons, this alternative was rejected in favor of the site plan shown in Figure 2.
1.6
CEQA REQUIREMENTS
This Project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA lead
agency is the City of Santa Rosa. Prior to making a decision to approve the Project, the City must identify and
City of Santa Rosa
14
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
document the potential significant environmental effects of the Project in accordance with CEQA.
IS/Proposed MND has been prepared under the direction of the City to fulfill the CEQA requirements.
This
The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide a basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Negative Declaration. This IS/Proposed MND is intended to satisfy
the requirements of the CEQA (Public Resources Code, Div 13, Sec 21000-21177), and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sec 15000-15387). CEQA encourages lead agencies and
applicants to modify their projects to avoid significant adverse impacts.
Section 15063(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the content requirements of an Initial Study as follows:
15063(d) Contents. An Initial Study shall contain in brief form:
(1)
A description of the Project including the location of the Project;
(2)
An identification of the environmental setting;
(3)
An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided
that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some
evidence to support the entries;
(4)
A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any;
(5)
An examination of whether the Project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls;
(6)
The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.
City of Santa Rosa
15
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
3. Environmental Effects of the Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS
Would the Project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c.


Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

Discussion:
I. a) Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista – Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is not located on a City-designated scenic road, however, the site would be visible from
US Highway 101 (US 101), which the City designates as a scenic road from the northern to southern city
limit (Santa Rosa 2009a). In the area of the Project, US 101 is elevated, providing views of scenic vistas
to the east and west, though at high vehicular speeds. The site would also be visible from the
Fountaingrove Ridge area, located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast. General Plan Objective T-G
seeks to identify, preserve, and enhance scenic roads throughout Santa Rosa in both rural and developed
areas. To that end, a number of policies are presented to achieve Objective T-G. Given its purpose,
highly developed nature, and proximity to US 101, the one Policy that would apply to this Project would be
T-G-10. This policy seeks to ensure any signage along scenic roads does not detract from the area’s
scenic character. As the Project would be situated in an existing mall facility – and given its location
toward the interior of the mall parcel and away from US 101 – any architectural or other features
associated with the Project would not detract from the area’s scenic character along this section of US
101.
At the City’s request, a visual simulation was conducted of the Project site as viewed from US 101. The
Existing View shown in Figure 7 was taken from the passing lane of US 101 northbound immediately
south of the Steele Lane/Guerneville Road interchange. The view looks west toward the southern portion
of Coddingtown Mall, showing the Macy’s store to the right in the foreground and the existing Gottschalks
building in the background to the left. Parking and mature trees dominate the remainder of the
foreground view.
The simulated Project View (see Figure 7) presents the same scene, but with the Gottschalks building
removed and the proposed Target structure in its place. The mature trees, parking lot, and Macy’s
building remain in place. Compared to the Existing View, the proposed structure is lower in profile than
the Gottschalks building, with the front of the building situated closer to the primary mall structure than
Gottschalks. The proposed structure would increase views across the southern portion of Coddingtown
City of Santa Rosa
17
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Mall to the landscape trees further to the west. Also, it should be noted that, per the City’s General Plan,
the critical viewpoint would be from US 101. When seen in passing from US 101, the Target building
would be bordered by the Macy’s building and the commercial/office building at the intersection of
Cleveland and Edwards avenues to the south, and would occupy only a small part of the field of view.
The opportunity for viewing the Project site would be fleeting when traveling at the posted speed limit on
US101.
Construction activities would have a temporary visual effect during demolition, site grading, and erection
of the new building. However, the Project area is located on the southern portion of Coddingtown Mall,
partially blocked by existing mall buildings; therefore, construction-related ground disturbance would only
be momentarily visible from US 101 The impact to views from US 101 during construction would be less
than significant.
Following construction, the appearance of the Project site from distant vista points would be similar to the
existing views of the mall property as a whole, which is intensively developed as a commercial and office
center with multi-story buildings, parking lots, and paved streets. The Project would be located entirely
within developed parts of the mall, would be one story instead of two stories of the Gottschalks building,
and would be similar in height to adjacent buildings in the mall. The permanent impact to scenic vistas
would be less than significant.
I. b) Damage State Scenic Resources – No Impact
The Project site is located approximately 0.2 mile west of US 101, accessible via the Guerneville
Road/Steele Lane interchange. The US 101 corridor within the Project area is not listed as a state
designated scenic highway, nor is the corridor listed as an eligible state scenic highway (California
Department of Transportation 2011). In addition, no construction work would occur immediately adjacent
to or within the US 101 right-of-way. No impact would occur.
I. c) Degrade Existing Visual Character – Less than Significant
Coddingtown Mall has an E-shaped plan and is surrounded by a large parking lot. The majority of the
shopping center is single story, with flat roofs, and features a covered portico. On the exterior, storefronts
open directly out to the portico and the parking lots beyond. The simple stucco-clad elevations include
wide, open bays defined by square columns and accented by recessed beams across the top of the
openings. The three anchor stores [on the east, west, and south] are all essentially two stories with flat
roofs and are unified only in their use of tan-colored concrete masonry units at the exteriors. Although
focused on the Project site on the south side of the mall, the Existing View in Figure 7 provides a
representation of the mall’s visual character. Numerous small buildings line the outer edges of the
parking area, mainly south of the shopping center, and a branch library stands at the north parking lot
entrance at Guerneville Road. The mall parcel is surrounded on the north, south, and west with a mix of
commercial and residential (single- and multi-family) properties. Cleveland Avenue and US 101 form a
visual boundary to the east.
As described above, the visual character of Coddingtown Mall – including the Project site – is typical of an
urban regional mall constructed in the 1960s. For a more thorough description of the mall’s architectural
characteristics, please refer to the Project’s Historic Resources Evaluation included in Appendix C.
Affected viewers primarily include mall patrons and passers-by on the surrounding streets, as well as
motorists on US 101, and single- and multi-family residences to the south along Edwards Avenue.
City of Santa Rosa
18
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
N
NTS
CODDINGTOWN MALL
PROJECT
SITE
Existing View
Viewpoint & Direction
Existing View: View looking west toward the Project site
while traveling north in the passing lane of northbound U.S.
Highway 101 near the Steele Lane/Guerneville Road exit. This view shows the Project site as it currently exists, with
the vacant Gottschalks building. This view was taken on
March 2, 2012.
Project View: Same view looking west toward the Project
site from northbound U.S. Highway 101. This view shows
the Project site with a simulation of the completed Target
store.
Project View
Project Visual
Simulation
J:\12506 - Simon Properties\12506-11-001 - Coddingtown Target CEQA\Figures\Project Visual Simulation.indd April 23, 2012 10:22 AM
Job Number
Revision
Date
1250611001
A
04-2012
Figure 7
With the exception of the Los Robles apartments located within the mall property to the south of the
Target site, most of these residential units do not have a clear view to the Project site. Given the general
aesthetic characteristics of the area surrounding the Project site, the visual sensitivity of the site is
considered low.
Construction would result in temporary construction-related effects on the visual character of the Project
site due to demolition, excavation, grading, and erection of the new building. The temporary construction
activities and disturbance areas would be visible to adjacent residences, office, and commercial uses.
Construction would take approximately 15 months, including 6 months for site demolition and grading,
and 9 months for site work and building construction. Construction would also require removal of 115
existing landscape trees within the Project area. Per the Project’s landscape plan (Figure 6),
approximately 85 landscape trees would be replanted in the Project site parking area and around the
store structure to replace those removed for Project construction.
The construction activities described above would have a temporary minor impact on the visual character
of the area. However, the construction activities, including the removal of the landscape trees, would not
result in a substantial adverse aesthetic impact on the visual character of the site or its surroundings,
given the temporary nature of construction, and the presence of other trees onsite that would remain and
that would be planted following construction. Therefore, the potential construction-related impact on the
visual character of the Project site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
Following construction, the appearance of the Project site would not be out of character with the mall
property as a whole, which is intensively developed as a commercial and office center with multi-story
buildings, parking lots, and paved streets. The Project would be located entirely within already developed
parts of the mall and would be similar in height to adjacent buildings. The impact on the visual character
of the Project site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
I. d)
New Source of Light or Glare – Less than Significant with Mitigation
The Project would include installation of new exterior lighting, which could create a new source of
nighttime light in the Project area. The impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure AES-1:
Standards
Comply with City of Santa Rosa Outdoor Lighting
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Santa Rosa Outdoor Lighting standards contained in
Zoning Code Section 20-30.080. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
An outdoor light fixture shall be limited to a maximum height of 14 feet or the height of the
nearest building, whichever is less.
•
New lighting fixtures shall be shielded or recessed to reduce light bleed to adjoining
properties, ensuring that the light source is not visible from off the site.
•
Glare and reflections shall be confined within the boundaries of the Project site to the
maximum extent feasible.
•
Each light fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public
rights-of-way, so that no on-site light fixture directly illuminates an area off the site.
Compliance with the City’s Outdoor Lighting as required in Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce
impacts related to new sources of light and glare to a less-than-significant level.
City of Santa Rosa
20
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the Project: (In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board.)
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?

c.
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion:
II. a) Convert Farmland – No Impact
The California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource Protection, maps important
farmlands throughout California. The Project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (CDC 2010),
and is not located on or in the vicinity of land mapped as farmland. Based on this, no impact to prime
farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
21
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
II. b) Conflict with Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract – No Impact
The California Land Conservation Act (commonly referred to as the Williamson Act) is the state’s primary
program for the conservation of private land for agricultural and open space uses. The CDC prepares
countywide maps of lands enrolled in Williamson Act contracts. The Project site is not enrolled in the
Williamson Act program (PRMD 2011). In addition, the Project site is currently zoned General
Commercial (GC) and Office Commercial (CO), neither of which allows agricultural uses. Therefore, the
Project site is not located on land zoned for agricultural uses or subject to a Williamson Act contract, and
no impact would occur.
II. c, d) Conflict with Forestland Zoning – No Impact
No land in the Project area is either zoned for forestry or meets the definition of forest land. Thus, neither
construction nor operation of the Project would conflict with zoning regulations for forest land, result in the
loss of forest land, or result in the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. No impact would occur.
II. e) Convert Farm or Forest Land – No Impact
The Project site is located on land designated as urban and built-up land within Santa Rosa’s Urban
Growth Boundary and is not located on land used or zoned for agricultural uses. Adjacent properties are
designated for commercial/office/residential development and there are no existing agricultural uses in the
immediate area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conversion of farmland or forest land to
non-agricultural or non-forest use.
City of Santa Rosa
22
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the Project: (Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations.)

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c.

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase any
criteria pollutant for which the Project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?

Discussion:
III. a) Conflict with or Obstruct Applicable Air Quality Plan – No Impact
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (Guidelines)2 set
forth criteria for determining a Project’s consistency with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD
2011). Per the Guidelines, the BAAQMD considers the Project consistent with the Clean Air Plan if it:
1) can be concluded that a Project supports the primary goals of the Plan [by showing that the Project
would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts]; 2) includes applicable control
measures from the Plan, and; 3) does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Plan control measure.
The primary goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan are to protect air quality, public health, and the climate. The
Plan includes 55 “control measures” in five categories: stationary and area source; mobile source;
transportation control; land use and local impact; and, energy and climate. These control measures are
intended to:
2

Reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants;

Safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk,
with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and,

Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate.
On January 9, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that the adoption of significance thresholds in the BAAQMD’s
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was a “project” under CEQA, invalidating the thresholds, and required the BAAQMD to conduct the
requisite environmental review of the thresholds. This Air Quality section does not rely on any of the previously-adopted
thresholds, and therefore is not affected by the court ruling.
City of Santa Rosa
23
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
As shown in the analyses presented in Impacts III. b., c., d., and e. and VII. a. and b. below, the Project
would not result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, would not expose the community to
greater health risks stemming from exposure to are pollutants, and would assist in reducing GHG
emissions. Therefore, the Project would be in support of the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan. No
impact would occur.
III. b)
Violate Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to Existing or Projected Air Quality
Violation – Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The Air Basin is currently
designated as a nonattainment area for suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and ozone
precursors including reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOX).
Respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less is referred to as
PM10. PM2.5 includes a subgroup of finer particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers
or less. In the Air Basin, most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factory emissions,
construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Health effects from
particulate matter include reduced lung function, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases,
increases in mortality rate, and reduced lung function and growth in children.
The formation of ozone is through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of ROG and
NOX in the presence of sunlight. ROG emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion and the
evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. NOX are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and
oxygen produced from the combustion of fuels. Health effects from ozone include aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increased cough and chest
discomfort.
Project construction activities would cause exhaust emissions from on-road haul trucks, worker commute
vehicles, and off-road heavy duty construction equipment. The BAAQMD has established preliminary
screening criteria for both construction and operational phases of a project to provide lead agencies with
a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in significant air quality impacts. If all
of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency need not perform a detailed
air quality assessment of the project’s air pollutant emissions and a less-than-significant impact would
occur.
Construction
The screening criterion3 recommended by the BAAQMD relative to air pollutant emissions (i.e., ROG,
NOx, PM2.5, and PM10) for construction activities is 277,000 square feet for a free-standing discount
superstore. In comparison, the proposed Target store would be approximately 143,487 square feet in
size, which is 133,513 square feet less than the screening criterion for size. The second screening
criterion is that the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines be included in the project design and implemented during construction. To meet this
requirement, the applicable measures have been included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (Basic
Construction Measures).
The third criterion identifies construction activities (asbestos demolition, multiple construction phases
occurring at the same time, extensive site preparation, transport of over 10,000 cubic yards of soil) that
3
The screening criteria to assist in determining whether air pollutant emissions require detailed assessment were not adopted as
thresholds by the BAAQMD and, therefore, are not affected by the court ruling discussed in footnote 1.
City of Santa Rosa
24
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
would preclude a project from a less-than-significant conclusion. Construction activities would include the
demolition of the existing Gottschalks building and adjacent retail space. The buildings to be demolished
may contain hazardous building materials, such as asbestos-containing materials in the roofing, flooring,
ceiling, and piping. The BAAQMD requires the presence of asbestos-containing materials be evaluated in
any structure prior to demolition and appropriate pre-demolition notifications. The potential impact to air
quality from building demolition is considered significant, given that a hazardous building materials survey
has not been completed for the Project, and if present, asbestos containing materials could present an air
quality impact if released during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Construction Measures
The Applicant and its Contractor(s) shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s Basic Construction Measures, which consist of the following:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials Survey and Abatement
See Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for a description of this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (Basic Construction Measures) would require implementation of the BAAQMD’s
basic construction measures in accordance with the BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA guidelines. Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1 (Hazardous Building Materials Survey and Abatement) would reduce the impact from
demolition activities by requiring pre-construction hazardous materials surveys, abatement practices for
any asbestos containing materials in accordance with Cal-OSHA and BAAQMD regulations (Regulation
11, Rule 2), and appropriate BAAQMD notifications prior to commencement of demolition activities. With
implementation of the following mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant.
City of Santa Rosa
25
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Operations
The screening criterion4 recommended by the BAAQMD relative to air pollutant emissions (i.e., ROG,
NOX, PM2.5, and PM10) for operation (i.e., occupancy) of a free-standing discount superstore is 277,000
square feet. The net increase in occupied space would be 69,071 square feet5, which is 17,929 square
feet less than the screening size. Therefore, the operational impact would be less than significant.
The project would have a less-than-significant impact on CO if it meets the following three screening
criteria:

The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by a
county’s congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour.

The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited.
As discussed in Transportation/Traffic Impact XVI.b, the Project is consistent with the Sonoma County
Congestion Management Program. As discussed in Impact XVI.a and verified in the data in Appendix E,
the Project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour, or increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour. Based
on these findings, none of the three screening criteria for CO are exceeded. The Project would, therefore,
result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations.
III. c)
Result in Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for which the
Region is in Non-Attainment – Less than Significant Impact
As described above, the local Air Basin is in non-attainment for the criteria air pollutants PM2.5 and PM10
and ozone precursors (ROG and NOx). However, the Project meets both the operational and construction
screening criteria established by the BAAQMD, and therefore operation of the Project would result in a
less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions.
III. d)
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations – Less than
Significant Impact
A screening level health risk analysis of Project construction activities was conducted to evaluate
construction emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and potential associated health risks on nearby
residential areas. A BAAQMD-approved dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM at
existing residences near the Project site, and the results were compared to thresholds for excess cancer
risk. A copy of the Health Risk Analysis is provided in Appendix B, and the findings are summarized in
Table III-1 below.
4
The screening criteria to assist in determining whether air pollutant emissions require detailed assessment was not adopted as a
threshold by the BAAQMD, and therefore is not affected by the court ruling discussed in footnote 1.
5
The net increase in occupied space was derived as follows: (143,487 sf of future occupied space - 74,416 sf of existing occupied
space = 69,071 sf of new occupied space).
Existing occupied space was based on the following environmental baseline
conditions (44,416 sf of small shop space occupied + 30,000 sf of the Gottschalks store occupied = 74,416 sf existing occupied
space).
City of Santa Rosa
26
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Table III-1. Health Risk Assessment Results for Construction Activities
Incremental
Child Cancer
Risk (1)
Incremental
Adult Cancer
Risk (1)
Hazard Index (2)
Annual
Average PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Project
2.4
0.1
0.004
0.02
Threshold
10
10
1.0
0.3
Notes: (1) The incremental child cancer risk is reported as excess cancer cases per million
(2) The hazard index is the ratio of the annual DPM concentration to the chronic inhalation reference exposure
level
The impact of construction-related emissions on sensitive receptors would be less than significant, given
that the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to cancer risk or non-cancer disease (represented
by the Hazard Index) risk in excess of the threshold for cancer risk from DPM. Project operation would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations as the Project does not include any
diesel-powered stationary source emissions. Emergency power would be provided by a natural gas- or
propane-powered back-up generator, which would not result in DPM emissions. Operational impacts
III. e) Create Objectionable Odors – Less than Significant Impact
During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment could create localized odors.
These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the
construction zone due to atmospheric dissipation. The impact would be less than significant.
Project operation would not expose substantial numbers of people to objectionable odors as the Project
does not include anything which would cause objectionable odors. No impact would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
27
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c.

Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?


Discussion:
The Project site is currently a portion of the Coddingtown Mall with a paved parking lot, buildings, and 115
landscape trees. The site is located in the Santa Rosa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle. A
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record search was conducted for the Santa Rosa USGS
Quadrangle on April 20, 2012. CNDDB records indicate that no special-status plants or animals have
been identified at the site or within ½ mile of the site.
Special-Status Species
The Project site is urbanized. The site’s existing ornamental landscaping is highly managed and
maintained in a busy parking lot and provides little, if any, potential habitat for special-status species.
Of the 34 animal species recorded in the CNDDB in the Santa Rosa quandrangle (Santa Rosa 2009b),
none have occurrences on the Project site or its surroundings.
Recent occurrences of
threatened/endangered terrestrial special-status species within the City include northern spotted owl (Strix
City of Santa Rosa
28
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
occidentalis caurina) approximately 6 miles east of the Project site, California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii) approximately 7 miles south of the Project site, and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense) approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Project site (Santa Rosa 2009b). Nonetheless,
urbanized areas can provide marginal habitat for special-status bat and bird species.
Bats
Several bat species may forage in the Project area and roost in buildings or in trees, including the
pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), western red
bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), long-legged myotis (M. volans), fringed
myotis (M. thysanodes), and Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis). These species are former federal
species of concern6 and/or California Species of Special Concern.
Birds
Vegetation at the Project site includes ornamental trees, which can provide roosting and nesting
habitat for raptors and other bird species protected under California Fish and Game Codes (Section
3503, Section 3503.5, and Section 3800) and under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR
10.13).
IV. a) Impacts to Special-status Species – Less than Significant with Mitigation
The Project site and its surroundings is a developed urban habitat primarily covered with impervious
surfaces, including buildings and paved parking lots. Onsite vegetation is composed of ornamental trees
and landscape vegetation in the site’s parking lots. The recent CNDDB search indicates that no specialstatus plant or animal species have been identified on or in the vicinity of the Project site. The potential
for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur at this site or in the area is considered minimal given
the lack of habitat or proximity to active commercial urbanization.
However, the 115 landscape trees on the Project site, all but three of which would be removed by the
Project, may provide nesting habitat for resident and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. In addition, on-site trees and the exterior eaves of
existing buildings to be demolished could provide roosting habitat for bats. Nesting birds could be
disturbed by construction noise or tree removal and roosting bats could be disturbed by tree or building
removal. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Surveys for Nesting
Birds
If feasible, the Applicant shall remove trees only between the months of September and January in
order to avoid the potential of encountering nesting birds. If tree removal or construction is
scheduled to start between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction nesting surveys within 14 days of construction for nesting passerines (small
songbirds) and raptors. Trees within a 200-foot radius shall be included in the surveys. If active
nests are located in the work area, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriately-sized
buffer around the nest prior to tree removal and/or ground-breaking activities. No construction
activity shall occur within the buffer area. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) shall
6
Former Federal Species of Concern are species that were listed by the Sacramento FWS office until 2006, when they stopped
maintaining their list. These species are still considered to be at-risk species by other federal and state agencies, as well as
various organizations with recognized expertise such as the Audubon Society.
City of Santa Rosa
29
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has been abandoned as confirmed by the
qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Surveys for Roosting
Bats
The Applicant shall ensure that a qualified bat biologist conduct a special-status bat assessment for
the trees and building eaves proposed for removal as a result of the Project. The assessment shall
occur at least 30 days and no more than 90 days prior to construction activities. If suitable bat
habitat is found, a report shall be prepared to detail appropriate mitigation measures for each tree
or building eave containing suitable potential or discovered roost habitat (e.g. cavities, crevices,
bark or wood fissures, exfoliating bark). Tree and building eave removal shall be conducted in
accordance with the report and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist only during the
following seasonal periods of bat activity:
•
August 31 through October 15, when young would be self-sufficiently volant (i.e., able to fly)
and prior to hibernation; or
•
March 1 to April 15, avoiding hibernating bats and prior to formation of maternity colonies.
Trees shall be removed in a two-phased removal system conducted over two consecutive days.
The first day (in the afternoon), selected limbs and branches not containing cavities are to be
removed using only chainsaws (no excavators, etc.). Limbs with cavities, crevices or deep bark
fissures shall be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features shall be removed. On
the second day, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws or other
equipment.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Surveys for Nesting Birds) and BIO-2
(Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Surveys for Roosting Bats) would reduce impacts to special-status bird
and bat species by scheduling tree removals outside of nesting seasons, requiring pre-construction
nesting and roosting surveys as necessary, establishing no work protection zones for active nests, and
tree and eave removal procedures. The impact on special-status bird and bat species following mitigation
IV. b, c) Riparian, Sensitive Natural Community, or Wetlands – No Impact
The Project site is in an area urban development, primarily covered with impervious surfaces including
buildings and paved parking lots. The Project site does not include riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities, such as grasslands, wetlands (including marsh or vernal pools), or oak woodlands.
Therefore, no impact to riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural
communities would occur.
IV. d) Movement of Fish or Wildlife Species – No Impact
The Project site is located in an urbanized area and does not include waterways or other sensitive natural
communities, such as grasslands, wetlands, or riparian habitat that provide wildlife movement corridors.
Therefore, the Project would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Please refer to Impact IV.a
above regarding the potential impacts to nesting birds. No impact would occur movement corridors.
City of Santa Rosa
30
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
IV. e) Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances – Less than Significant with Mitigation
The Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 contains numerous goals, policies and action items to protect
biological resources. The policies include conserving wetlands and waterways so that there is no net loss
of wetlands, conserving significant vegetation and trees, and ensuring construction adjacent to creek
channels is sensitive to the natural environment. Specific policies relevant to the Project are listed below.
OSC-H
Conserve significant vegetation and trees.
OSC-H-1
Preserve trees and other vegetation, including wildflowers, both as individual
specimens and as parts of larger plant communities.
OSC-H-2
Preserve and regenerate native oak trees.
OSC-H-4
Require incorporation of native plants into landscape plans for new development,
where appropriate and feasible, especially in areas adjacent to open space areas or
along waterways.
The City of Santa Rosa’s tree ordinance effectively applies to any woody plant having a diameter of four
inches or more. It also identifies numerous trees, including heritage trees and street trees, which are
protected by Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17-24, Ordinance 2858. Reconfiguration of the existing
parking lot, mall entries, and construction of the new Target store would require the removal of
approximately 115 existing landscape trees. The majority of the existing landscape trees that would be
removed have a breast height diameter ranging from eight- to ten inches. The largest tree to be removed
has a breast height diameter of approximately 21-inches. The three largest trees on site (breast height
diameters ranging from 45-inches to 50-inches) would not be removed. According to the Project’s
landscape plan, 85 trees would be planted within the construction area to replace those removed to
accommodate construction. Still, the impact would be significant when considered against the City’s tree
ordinance.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Comply with City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall comply with the tree
replanting requirements indicated in Santa Rosa Municipal Code Chapter 17-24. Replacement
trees shall be planted on the Project site; however, if the Project site is inadequate in size to
accommodate the replacement trees, the trees shall be planted on public property with the
approval of the Director of the City’s Recreation and Parks Department. A fee of $100 per
replacement tree may be paid in-lieu of planting replacement trees onsite to the City of Santa Rosa
Department of Recreation and Parks.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (Comply with City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance) would reduce potential
conflicts to local ordinances protecting biological resources by avoiding or replacing trees in accordance
with the City’s tree ordinance standards. The impact following mitigation would be less than significant.
IV. f) Habitat Conservation Plan – No Impact
No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan exists for the Project area. No impact would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
31
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?

c.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion:
V. a) Historical Resources – Less than Significant
No buildings or structures within the Project site or the surrounding Coddingtown Mall development are
currently listed in the California Register of Historical Places (CRHP) or National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). A historic resource evaluation, included as Appendix C, provides an analysis of the
buildings and structures at the Project site and the Coddingtown Mall to determine potential eligibility for
future listing in the CRHP or NHRP, and to determine if the Project would have an effect on any potential
historical resources.
History of Coddingtown Mall
The history of Coddingtown Mall is most significantly tied to its namesake and developer, Hugh Codding.
Codding was a central character in the postwar development of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Hugh
purchased land from the Indian Creek Lumber Company at Guerneville Road and Range Avenue, and
aspired to create a new commercial development. The shopping center was part of a larger overall
development of the area northwest of the downtown, eventually featuring commercial development,
residential subdivisions, an industrial park, professional offices, theaters, and an airport. In 1959,
Codding had planned on naming the shopping center “Futureland.” The iconic, rotating Coddingtown sign
tower is said to have been the first structure installed on the site between 1960 and 1962. The tower,
which still stands and is a listed Santa Rosa Landmark, consists of a revolving, neon name plate with
“Codding” on one side and “Town” on the other.
Welton Beckett and Associates, one of the foremost national firms specializing in the regional shopping
center type, was hired to design the shopping center. Construction began in 1962, with the Thrifty Drug
Company and Lucky Stores being the first companies to locate in the new development, with several
other stores flanked in between. The following year, the last building at the north side was constructed,
which housed Roos Atkins, Smith’s and Joseph Magnin – now Sweet River Grill, Bank of the West,
Village Sewing, Quizno’s Subs, Baskin Robbins, Pure Beauty, Great Clips and Fresh China. Codding
continued work to expand the open air shopping center, and by the mid-1960s, both the Emporium and
J.C. Penney agreed to open stores. The Emporium – now a Macy’s Department Store – was constructed
City of Santa Rosa
32
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
first and opened with two additional single-story commercial buildings in 1966. J.C. Penney was
completed the following year.
The buildings at the shopping center remained essentially unchanged until 1979, when the shopping
center was enclosed and a third anchor store (Liberty House, later occupied by Gottschalks Department
Store) was constructed in 1980. This structure was located on the south side of the shopping center,
centered between the two other anchor department stores. The former Liberty House and Gottschalks
structure, which was remodeled and expanded in the 1990s, was a stylistic departure from the original
shopping center. The rectangular two-story building with a flat roof features a stucco-clad second story
that slightly cantilevers out over the split-face tan block-clad first story. At the building’s three exterior
entrances, a large glass box extends out over the recessed doorways. Also in 1980, the exterior
pedestrian promenades throughout the shopping center were enclosed with rows of clerestory windows,
exposed deep wood beams and wood ceilings.
The most recent developments at Coddingtown include the demolition of the original Lucky store, and the
construction of a new Whole Foods Market in its place; as well as the redesign and construction of two
north entrances.
Findings
The first consideration for determining a property’s eligibility for the CRHP or the NRHP is age. Typically
a building must be at least 50 years old, unless special circumstances exist. The Gottschalks building
was constructed in 1980 and is only 32 years old. As a result of the research conducted for the historical
resource evaluation, no evidence has emerged that the building is of exceptional importance or of any
historical importance. It appears to be a typical commercial shopping center structure of its period and
does not maintain any historical significance. Therefore, the Gottschalks building is not eligible for listing
in the California or National Register of Historical Resources.
The buildings of the 1960s original shopping center range in age from 45 to 50 years old. Based on the
historical resources evaluation, it appears that the Coddingtown Mall as a whole may have minor
significance for its association with the development of northwest Santa Rosa, for its association with
Hugh Codding, and as the work of Welton Becket completed in the Modern style. In addition, the sign
tower maintains local significance for its association with Hugh Codding and for its style.
For a property to qualify as historically significant under either the CRHP or NRHP, it must retain historic
integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance. Overall, the Coddingtown Mall property
does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance given that the original design of the shopping
center has been significantly altered over time. For example, the original outdoor pedestrian promenades
were enclosed, a new two-story anchor department store was constructed, new entrances have been
constructed, facades have been renovated, the original Lucky’s building has been demolished and
replaced with a new building, and portions of the original Thrifty Drug store were also partially demolished
and replaced with new structures. The single-story commercial buildings retain some of the original
design elements, but it appears that the exterior wall cladding has been altered on several buildings and
features, such as projecting eaves that have been removed. The only two buildings that appear to retain
their integrity of design are the two anchor department stores at the east and west ends of the shopping
center (J.C. Penney and Macy’s). The remaining structures have been so extensively altered that the
overall property no longer maintains its integrity of material, workmanship, or feeling (i.e., no longer
maintains its expression of its period as a whole).
Overall, the Coddingtown Mall does not retain its integrity of design, and has been determined to be
ineligible for inclusion in the CRHP or NRHP. Only the revolving Coddingtown tower sign, which is a
City of Santa Rosa
33
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
listed Santa Rosa landmark, appears to maintain any historical significance. The Project would not result
in demolition, relocation, or alteration of the Coddingtown tower sign. The impact on historical resources
would be less than significant, given that the Gottschalks Building and the overall Coddingtown Mall is not
eligible for inclusion on the CRHP or NRHP, is not included on any other local register of historical
resources, and does not maintain any other type of historical significance.
V. b,d) Archeological Resources or Human Remains – Less than Significant with Mitigation
In order to identify the presence of any known archaeological resources or human remains within the
Project area, a records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System (NWIC 2012). In addition, the State of California
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was asked to review the Sacred Lands file for information
on Native American cultural resources in the study area, and a list of people responsible for Native
American concerns in the area was notified of the proposed Project and asked if they had knowledge of
any cultural resources in the Project area. A pedestrian survey of the construction zone was not
undertaken for this Initial Study because the presence of impervious surfaces at the Project site prohibits
any effective visual surface survey for cultural resources within the area.
The NWIC records search did not identify any known cultural resources on the Project site. The nearest
recorded sites were architectural historic resource evaluations of off-site residences, located
approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the Project’s construction boundary.
The NAHC indicated that the record search of the Sacred Lands File did not identify the presence of
Native American cultural resources in the Project area (NAHC 2012). A letter was received from a
representative of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria on March 12, 2012. The letter indicated that
the Tribe has no knowledge of cultural resources located in the Project area. An e-mail response was
received from a representative of the Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley on March 30, 2012. The
representative did not indicate knowledge of cultural resources at the Project site, but noted the need for
mitigation should archaeological resources be encountered during construction. No other responses
have been received to date.
Although there are no known archaeological sites on the Project site, the impact to archaeological
resources is considered significant, given the potential for unanticipated discoveries to occur during
ground-disturbing construction activities. In addition, the impact to human remains is considered
significant, given the potential for unanticipated discoveries to occur during ground-disturbing construction
activities.
Mitigation Measure CR-1:
Cultural Resources
Identify and Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Unknown
If archaeological materials are encountered during construction activities, the piece of equipment
that encounters the materials shall be stopped, and the find inspected by a qualified archaeologist.
Project personnel shall not collect cultural materials. If the archaeologist determines that the find
qualifies as a unique archaeological resource or a historical resource for purposes of CEQA (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(3)), all work must be stopped in the immediate vicinity to allow the
archaeologist to evaluate any materials and recommend appropriate treatment. Such treatment
and resolution could include modifying the Project to allow the materials to be left in place, or
undertaking data recovery of the materials in accordance with standard archaeological methods.
The preferred treatment of the resource is protection and preservation.
City of Santa Rosa
34
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Procedures for Encountering Human Remains
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly
disturb a human grave. If human graves are encountered, the Applicant and its Contractor shall
ensure that work shall halt in the vicinity and the County Coroner shall be notified. At the same
time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If human remains are of
Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within
24 hours of identification, pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.
Mitigation Measure CR-1 (Identify and Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Unknown Cultural Resources) would
reduce the impact to archaeological resources that may be encountered during construction by protecting,
preserving, or recovering any significant resources.
Mitigation Measure CR-2 (Procedures for
Encountering Human Remains) would reduce the impact from discovery of human remains by providing
standard procedures in the event that human remains are encountered and requiring adherence to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 requiring Native American tribal notification. The impact to potentially
unknown archaeological resources or human remains following mitigation would be less than significant.
V. c) Paleontological or Geological Resources – Less than Significant with Mitigation
Paleontological resources are the remains or traces of prehistoric animals and plants. A search of
geologic documents and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database was
performed for the Project by Kenneth L. Finger, Ph.D., to assess the potential for paleontological
resources or paleontologically-sensitive geologic units at the Project site (Finger, 2012).
The surficial geology underlying the Project site is mapped as Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial terrace
deposits (Qhf) derived primarily from Pleistocene and older sedimentary igneous units (Finger 2012). The
hills about one mile northeast of the Project site are mapped as Pliocene-Miocene Petaluma Formation
(Tp) and it is most likely that the Petaluma Formation underlies the alluvial deposits at the Project site
(Finger 2012).
The UCMP database search revealed one Holocene vertebrae fossil and nine Tertiary vertebrae fossil
locations in the Petaluma Formation of Sonoma County (Finger 2012). The few specimens recorded
indicate the low paleontologic potential of the Petaluma Formation (Finger 2012).
Because the surface of the Project area has been heavily disturbed from previous development, it is
unlikely that construction-related excavations would encounter much if any of the previously undisturbed
Petaluma Formation. Although it is unlikely that Project construction would impact potentially significant
paleontological resources, it cannot be ruled out altogether. Therefore, the potential impact is considered
significant.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Evaluation and Treatment of Paleontological Resources
If paleontological resources (e.g., vertebrate bones, teeth, or abundant and well-preserved
invertebrates or plants) are encountered during construction, the Applicant shall ensure work in the
immediate vicinity shall be diverted away from the find until a professional paleontologist assesses
and salvages the find, if necessary.
Mitigation Measure CR-3 (Evaluation and Treatment of Paleontological Resources) would reduce
potential impacts to paleontological resources by requiring evaluation and salvage of any paleontological
resources found during construction. The impact to paleontological resources following mitigation would
be less than significant.
City of Santa Rosa
35
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a.i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
a.ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
a.iii. Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction?





a.iv. Landslides?
b.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on, or off, site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?

d.
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?

e.
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?

Discussion:
VI. a.i) Fault Rupture – No Impact
The Project site is not underlain by a known earthquake fault (Santa Rosa 2009a). The nearest known
active fault is the Rodgers Creek fault, located approximately 1 mile east of the Project site. Therefore,
no impact from rupture of a known fault would occur.
VI. a.ii) Strong Ground Shaking – Less than Significant with Mitigation
The USGS estimates that there is a 63 percent probability of a strong earthquake (magnitude 6.7 or
higher) occurring on one of the Bay Area faults in the 30-year period between 2007 and 2036, with a 31
percent chance of such an earthquake occurring on the Rodgers Creek fault, the closest fault to the
proposed Project (USGS, 2009). As shown in the City’s General Plan, the Project is located in an area
that would be subject to violent ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Rodgers Creek
City of Santa Rosa
36
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Fault (Santa Rosa 2009a). The potential impact from strong groundshaking would be significant, given
that the shaking could expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation
A California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct a design-level geotechnical study for
the Project. The geotechnical study shall evaluate seismic hazards and provide recommendations
to mitigate the effect of strong ground shaking; any unstable, liquefiable, or expansive soils; or
settlement in adherence with current California Building Code (CBC) standards for earthquake
resistant construction. The seismic criteria shall take into account the active faults in the Santa
Rosa area and beyond, and ground motions and shaking related to the faults shall be accounted.
The geotechnical study shall include evaluation of unstable land in the Project area, including areas
susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or settlement, and areas containing expansive soils.
The study shall provide measures to repair, stabilize, or avoid such soils, and include grading,
drainage, paving, and foundation design recommendations.
The Project shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the specific recommendations
contained in the design-level geotechnical study, including recommendations for grading, ground
improvement, and foundation support. The recommendations made in the geotechnical study shall
be incorporated into the final plans and specifications and implemented during construction.
Professional inspection of foundation and excavation, earthwork and other geotechnical aspects of
site development shall be performed during construction in accordance with the current version of
the CBC.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Geotechnical Investigation) would reduce the impact to people and Project
structures from strong seismic ground shaking by requiring a comprehensive geotechnical investigation,
which would evaluate seismic hazards and provide recommendations to mitigate the effect of strong
ground shaking in accordance with CBC construction standards. The impact from strong seismic ground
shaking following mitigation would be less than significant.
VI. a.iii) Seismic Related Liquefaction – Less than Significant with Mitigation
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated granular sediments temporarily lose their shear strength
during periods of earthquake-induced, strong groundshaking. The USGS classifies liquefaction
susceptibility according to five categories (from very low to very high) that describe the likely proportion of
all liquefaction occurrences that could take place in each category; the abundance or frequency of
liquefaction occurrence within the category; the strength of shaking required to produce liquefaction; and
the Quaternary-age geologic units included (USGS, 2006). The Project site is located in an area mapped
as having moderate liquefaction potential (USGS 2006), which is characterized as requiring
groundshaking greater than peak ground acceleration of about 0.1g to 0.2g7 to cause liquefaction (USGS
2006). The potential impact from seismic related liquefaction is considered significant, given the site’s
location in an area of moderate liquefaction and strong ground shaking potential.
See discussion of VI.a.ii above for a description of this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Geotechnical Investigation) would reduce the impact to people and Project
structures from seismic-related liquefaction by requiring a comprehensive geotechnical investigation,
7
The intensity of earthquake-induced ground motions and the potential forces affecting structures within the Project area can be
described using peak ground accelerations, which are represented as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity (g).
City of Santa Rosa
37
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
which would provide geotechnical measures to repair and stabilize any liquefiable soils in the Project
area, in accordance with locally adopted CBC construction standards. The impact from seismic-related
liquefaction following mitigation would be less than significant.
VI. a.iv) Landslides – No Impact
Slope failures and landslides involve the downslope displacement and movement of material, either
triggered by static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. Landslides can occur on slopes of
15 percent or less, but the probability is greater on steeper slopes. In 1998, USGS released a preliminary
map and geographic information system (GIS) database that provides a summary of the distribution of
landslides evident in the landscape of the San Francisco Bay region (USGS 1998). The Project site is
located in an area mapped as flat land, which is defined as areas of gentle slope at low elevation that
have little or no potential for the formation of slumps, transitional slides, or earth flows except along
stream banks or terrace margins (USGS 1998). Because the Project site is indeed flat, and because it is
not located along a stream bank or terrace margin, there would be no impact from landslides.
VI. b) Loss of Top Soil – No Impact
The Project site is currently comprised of impervious surfaces; the underlying soils would be utilized for
on-site grading and as fill as determined suitable. The Project site has been highly altered from its
original state and Project grading would not disturb areas with an intact soil profile. Therefore, no
substantial loss of topsoil due to erosion or grading is anticipated during construction or operation of the
Project, and no impact would occur. Construction impacts to water quality associated with soil erosion
are further addressed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality.
VI. c) Unstable Soils – Less than Significant with Mitigation
Soil surveys performed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provide information on
surface and near-surface soil materials in the Project area. Soil types mapped at the Project site by
NRCS include Alluvial land, clayey (AeA) and Zamora silty clay loam (ZaA) (NRCS 2012). According to
geologic mapping, these soils are underlain by Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial terrace deposits (Qhf)
consisting of gravel, sand, and silt (McLaughlin et. al, 2008). In addition to these mapped units, varying
layers of artificial fill would be expected at the site from previous development.
The potential impact from lateral spreading is low, because the site is completely flat.
Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an
earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid rearrangement, compaction, and
settling of subsurface materials (particularly loose, non-compacted, and variable sandy sediments).
Areas are susceptible to differential settlement if underlain by compressible sediments, such as poorly
engineered artificial fill or bay mud. The potential impact from settlement is considered significant, given
the likelihood of varying layers of artificial fill at the site from previous development.
As described under Impact VI.a.iv above, the Project site is located on flat land with no threat of
landslides.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Geotechnical Investigation) would reduce the impact from unstable soils or
geologic units by requiring a comprehensive geotechnical investigation, which would provide geotechnical
measures to repair and stabilize any unstable soils in the Project area, including areas susceptible to
City of Santa Rosa
38
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
liquefaction, and settlement, in accordance with locally adopted CBC construction standards. The impact
from unstable soils or geologic units following mitigation would be less than significant.
VI. d) Expansive Soils – Less than Significant
Soil types identified at the Project site include Alluvial land, clayey (AeA) and Zamora silty clay loam
(ZaA) (NRCS 2012). These soils have a moderate to high shrink swell potential (NRCS 2012). In
addition, artificial fills would be expected at the Project site from previous developments. The potential
impact from expansive soils is considered significant, given the presence of soils with moderate to high
shrink swell potential.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Geotechnical Investigation) would reduce the impact from expansive soils by
requiring a comprehensive geotechnical investigation, which would provide geotechnical measures to
protect against expansive soils, in accordance with locally adopted CBC construction standards. The
impact from expansive soils following mitigation would be less than significant.
VI. e) Septic Tanks – No Impact
The Project would be connected to the municipal sewer system and would not involve the construction or
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
39
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISS,ONS
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?


Discussion:
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) contribute to global warming or climate change. Principal GHGs contributing
to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated
compounds. These gases allow visible and ultraviolet light from the sun to pass through the atmosphere,
but prevent the resulting radiant heat from escaping back into space. Among the potential implications of
global warming are rising sea levels, as well as adverse impacts to public health, water supply, water
quality, agriculture, forestry, and habitats. In addition, global warming may increase electricity demand for
cooling, decrease the availability of hydroelectric power, and affect regional air quality and public health.
Like most criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, much of the GHG production comes from
motor vehicles. GHG emissions can be reduced to some degree by improved coordination of land use
and transportation planning on the city, county, and subregional levels, as well as by other measures to
reduce automobile use. Energy conservation measures also can contribute to reductions in GHG
emissions (BAAQMD 2011).
State of California
The State of California has set GHG reduction goals through the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the
“Global Warming Solutions Act.” AB 32 aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (Guidelines) have
established GHG thresholds of significance in order to meet the goals of AB 32. The BAAQMD
Guidelines8 contain the following thresholds and components:

GHG operational thresholds for Land Use projects are:
o
o
o
8
compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or
1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year; or
4.6 MT CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year

Specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing GHG impacts; and

Methods available to mitigate GHG impacts.
On January 9, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that the adoption of thresholds in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines was a “project” under CEQA, invalidating the thresholds, and required the BAAQMD to conduct the requisite
environmental review of the thresholds. Preparation of this Initial Study began in 2011 prior to the court ruling and the evaluation
uses the BAAQMD recommended methodologies and the then-adopted thresholds (i.e., compliance with a Qualified GHG
Reduction Strategy; or 1,100 MT of CO2e per year; or 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year). That evaluation continues to
be presented in this document, because the thresholds are a useful tool for determining significance; the evaluation is also
supplemented with an assessment that is not reliant upon the now invalidated thresholds.
City of Santa Rosa
40
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
City of Santa Rosa
On December 4, 2001 the Santa Rosa City Council adopted a resolution to become a member of Cities
for Climate Protection (CCP), a project of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives
(now called ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability). Since that time all eight Sonoma County
municipalities and Sonoma County have become members. By becoming a member, local governments
commit to completing five milestones: 1) conduct a GHG emissions analysis; 2) set a target for emissions
reduction; 3) draft a local action plan for meeting the target; 4) implement the action plan; and 5) monitor
and report on the progress (City of Santa Rosa 2002). While the City is currently working through the
milestones for municipal operations and GhG emissions, the following discussion focuses on the
milestones being completed to address community emissions as this is more pertinent to the Project.
In 2005 a community inventory was completed for all of Sonoma County and its communities:
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory for all sectors of Sonoma County. This inventory was prepared by
the Climate Protection Campaign on behalf of the BAAQMD and the Sonoma County Waste Management
Agency, and completed the first milestone. The report found that 47 percent of GHG emissions in
Sonoma County come from electricity and natural gas usage and 42 percent come from transportation.
On August 2, 2005 the City completed the second milestone through the adoption of Resolution 26341
which committed the City to reduce the City's municipal GHG emissions to 20 percent below 2000 levels
by 2010, and facilitate community-wide GHG emissions reduction to 25 percent below 1990 levels by
2015 (City of Santa Rosa 2005).
The third milestone was completed in October 2008 with the release of Sonoma County Community
Climate Action Plan (CCAP), prepared by the Climate Protection Campaign. The CCAP is a guide for the
communities in Sonoma County to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below
1990 levels by 2015. The report found that Sonoma County must reduce its emissions by 1.4 million tons
by 2015 to meet the reduction goals. The CCAP outlines a strategy for reaching the goal which includes
numerous solutions. The three major solutions would include 4 percent of the reduction coming from
energy efficiency, 15 percent coming from increased renewable energy production, and 17 percent
coming from transportation. The City is in the process of implementing and developing numerous
programs to reduce the City’s community greenhouse gas emissions, and in January 2012, the City
issued a Draft Climate Change Action Plan (CAP).
Methodology
As discussed above, a project that is in compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy would be
considered less than significant. The City of Santa Rosa’s Draft CAP is not yet considered “qualified” by
the BAAQMD; therefore, Santa Rosa’s CAP cannot be used to comply with this threshold. Therefore, the
1,100 MT CO2e per year is used in the following analysis.
VII. a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Less than Significant Impact
Construction
Construction activities that would result in Project-related GHG emissions include exhaust emissions from
on-road haul trucks, worker commute vehicles, and off-road heavy duty equipment. BAAQMD has not
adopted a threshold for construction-related GHG emissions, but it does suggest determining whether
construction GHG emissions would impede meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Project emissions
during construction would not be a considerable contribution to the cumulative GHG impact, given that
construction would be temporary (approximately 15 months), and the size and nature of construction is
not considered to result in significant air quality impacts (for example, the Project is below the BAAQMD
City of Santa Rosa
41
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
construction screening criterion for the size of free-standing discount superstores (see Section III, Air
Quality). The impact of construction GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Operation
The BAAQMD has established screening criteria to provide lead agencies with a conservative indication
of whether a proposed project could result in significant GHG impacts during operations (i.e., occupancy).
If the screening criteria are not exceeded by a proposed project, then the lead agency would not need to
perform a detailed GHG assessment of its project’s GHG emissions, and the potential impact would be
considered less than significant.
The operational screening criterion for GHG for a free-standing discount superstore is 17,000 square feet.
As summarized in Section III, Air Quality, the amount of retail space to be demolished would exceed the
amount of new retail space to be constructed, resulting in an overall net decrease of 58,144 square feet of
retail space. Although there would be a net decrease in overall retail space, the Project would result in an
increase in the amount of occupied space (since the Gottschalks building and adjacent stores are not
currently 100 percent occupied). Therefore, the net increase in occupied space was determined in order
to evaluate if the Project would exceed the operational screening size. The net increase in occupied
space would be 69,071 square feet, which is higher than the 17,000 square foot screening size.
Therefore, a detailed GHG assessment was conducted.
The annual GHG emissions were calculated for the Project using URBEMIS Version 9.2.4 and the BGM
Greenhouse Gas Calculator, as recommended by the BAAQMD. Appendix D provides detail for the
URBEMIS and BGM estimates. Project emissions are calculated to be approximately 1,327 MT CO2 per
year, which is 227 MT CO2 per year more than the 1,100-MT-per-year threshold identified by the
BAAQMD Guidelines.
The Target Project would meet Cal Green Tier 1 standards, comply with the City’s tree ordinance,
increase diversion of construction waste, and execute construction-related reductions such as minimizing
equipment idling time and maintaining construction equipment per manufacturers’ specifications. It is
noted that these measures also comply with the City’s Draft CAP New Development Checklist currently
released for public review. The existing Coddingtown Mall also has components that support the
reduction of transportation-related GHG emissions and that would benefit the Target facility as a tenant of
Coddingtown Mall. These include bicycle parking, electric vehicle parking, safe access to transit, bus
shelters, frequent transit service, and reduced idling at loading docks.
In the context of GHG emissions, it is important to note that the Target facility is essentially an infill project
in an existing built environment. It would not be a greenfield site on the edge of a City boundary as many
such projects are. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses including a substantial amount of residential
units (over 1,800 units within ½ mile). Further, there is no other existing Target store north of Highway 12
in Sonoma County. It is reasonable to assume that existing Target customers who live north of the
Highway 101/12 interchange (northern Santa Rosa, Wikiup-Larkfield area, Windsor) and shop at the
Target Store on Santa Rosa Avenue (located approximately 1.25 miles south of the Highway 101/12
interchange) would now drive the shorter distance to the proposed Target at Coddingtown Mall, resulting
in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Another way to evaluate the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is to compare the Project’s
annual emissions to the City’s overall emissions. Santa Rosa’s Draft CAP indicates that GHG emissions
for the City as a whole in baseline year 2007 were approximately 1,349,690 MT of CO2. Project
operational emissions of 1,327 MT per year would be a negligible part of overall City GHG emissions
City of Santa Rosa
42
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
(approximately .09 percent of annual City emission in 2007), and therefore, GHG emissions during
operation of the Project would not be a considerable contribution to the cumulative GHG impact.
Taking into consideration the Project’s commitments to GHG reduction, existing conditions of the site, and
shorter driving distances to a Target Store that would serve northern Sonoma County, the impact on GHG
VII. b) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation – Less than Significant with
Mitigation
In January 2012, the City issued a Draft CAP. The City’s Draft CAP is not yet adopted; therefore,
compliance with the CAP is not evaluated below. There are over 150 policies and programs in the Santa
Rosa General Plan that are considered to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These
policies cover 10 areas: land use and livability, urban design, housing, transportation, public services and
facilities, open space and conservation, growth management, economic vitality, historic preservation, and
noise and safety (a complete list is shown in the Greenhouse Gas Appendix of the General Plan).
Land Use and Livability
LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel,
energy, land, and materials consumption while promoting greenhouse gas emission reductions
citywide.
LUL-I-8 Encourage commercial properties to be retrofitted for energy efficiency and water
conservation.
The Project would comply with the above land use and livability policies as it would be located within the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary in an existing commercial shopping center, and would include integration
of green technologies and design components for energy efficiency and water conservation, such as
energy management systems, energy efficient heating, cooling, and lighting, white reflective roofs, low
flow sensor faucets, plumbing fixtures, and metered plumbing.
Urban Design
UD-A-12: Promote green building design and low impact development projects.
The Project would comply with the above urban design policy because it includes integration of green
technologies and design components, such as energy management systems, energy efficient heating,
cooling, and lighting, white reflective roofs, low volatile organic compound construction materials, and use
of recycled content construction materials, such as recycled steel and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
wood products.
Open Space and Conservation
OSC-H: Conserve significant vegetation and trees.
OSC-J-1: Review all new construction projects and require dust abatement actions as contained in
the CEQA Handbook of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
OSC-KL: Reduce energy use in existing and new commercial, industrial, and public structures.
OSC-K-1: Promote the use of site planning, solar orientation, cool roofs, and landscaping to
decrease summer cooling and winter heating needs. Encourage the use of recycled content
construction materials.
City of Santa Rosa
43
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
OSC-K-2: Identify opportunities for decreasing energy use through installation of energy efficient
lighting, reduced thermostat settings, and elimination of unnecessary lighting in public facilities.
As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the City of Santa Rosa has numerous trees, including
heritage trees and street trees, which are protected by Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17-24, Ordinance
2858. Reconfiguration of the existing parking lot, mall entries, and construction of the new Target store
would require the removal of approximately 115 existing landscape trees, while approximately 85 new
trees would be planted, as shown on the Project’s landscape plan (see Figure 6). The three largest trees
on site (breast height diameters ranging from 45-inches to 50-inches) would not be removed. Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 (Comply with City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance) would reduce potential conflicts with
policy OSC-H by avoiding or replacing trees in accordance with the City’s tree ordinance standards.
See Section IV, Biological Resources, for a description of this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce potential conflicts with policy OSC-J-1 by requiring the BAAQMD
basic construction measures.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Construction Measures
See Section III, Air Quality, for a description of this mitigation measure.
General Plan Policies OSC-KL, K-1, and K-2 address the goal of reducing energy use and using recycled
content construction materials. The Project would comply with these policies as it would include
integration of green technologies and design components, including energy efficiency systems, lighting,
diversion of demolition waste, and use of recycled content construction materials, such as recycled steel
and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) wood products.
Growth Management
GM-A-1: Contain urban development in the Santa Rosa area within the city’s Urban Growth
Boundary.
The Project would comply with the above growth management policy because it would be located within
the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.
Economic Vitality
EV-C: Promote new retail and higher density uses along the city’s regional/arterial corridors.
The Project would comply with the above economic vitality policy because it would be located within an
existing commercial shopping center along existing regional arterial corridors.
City of Santa Rosa
44
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c.


Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project area?
f.

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion:
VIII. a) Hazardous Materials – Less than Significant
Project construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants,
paints and solvents. Numerous laws and regulations ensure the safe transportation, use, storage and
disposal of hazardous materials. Routine transport of hazardous materials to and from proposed facility
sites could result in an incremental increase in the potential for accidents. However, Caltrans and the
California Highway Patrol (CHP) regulate the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes, including
container types and packaging requirements, as well as licensing and training for truck operators,
chemical handlers, and hazardous waste haulers. Because contractors would be required to comply with
existing and future hazardous materials laws and regulations covering the transport, use and disposal of
City of Santa Rosa
45
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
hazardous materials, the impacts associated with the potential to create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment would be less than significant.
Following construction, the Target Store would store and sell commercial grade materials with hazardous
material components. The use and sale of these materials is common and heavily regulated; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
VIII. b) Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials – Less than Significant with Mitigation
Construction activities would include the demolition of the existing Gottschalks building and adjacent
stores. The buildings to be demolished may contain hazardous building materials that could present a
public health risk during demolition, such as asbestos-containing materials in the roofing, flooring, ceiling,
and piping; lead-based paint on the interior and exterior of the buildings; electrical equipment that could
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); fluorescent light ballasts that could contain di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (DEHP) or PCBs; and fluorescent light tubes that contain mercury. The potential impact to the
public and environment from hazardous building materials is significant, given that a hazardous building
materials survey has not been completed for the Project, and that if present, such materials could present
a public health risk if released during construction.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials Survey and Abatement
Prior to building demolition, the Applicant shall ensure that a registered environmental assessor or
a registered engineer perform a hazardous building materials survey. The survey shall be
designed to identify any asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, electrical equipment
containing PCBs, fluorescent lights containing mercury, or fluorescent light ballasts containing
PCBs or DEHP. If any friable asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing materials, or other
hazardous components of building materials are identified, adequate abatement practices, such as
containment and/or removal, in accordance with applicable regulations for the handling and
removal of these materials, shall be implemented prior to demolition or renovation. Any PCBcontaining equipment or fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors shall also be removed and
disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
If asbestos is detected, the demolition and removal of asbestos-containing building materials shall
be subject to applicable California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and
BAAQMD regulations (Regulation 11, Rule 2). A written plan or notification of intent to demolish
buildings shall be provided to the BAAQMD at least ten working days prior to commencement of
demolition, even if no ACMs are present. If lead-based paint is identified, then federal and State
construction worker health and safety regulations shall be followed during demolition activities,
including Title 17 of the CCR, Sections 35001 through 3600. If loose or peeling lead-based paint is
identified, it shall be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed of in
accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (Hazardous Building Materials Survey and Abatement) would reduce impacts
from hazardous building materials by requiring pre-construction hazardous materials surveys and
appropriate abatement and disposal practices prior to demolition. With implementation of mitigation, the
impact would be less than significant.
VIII. c)
Emit Hazardous Emissions within One-quarter Mile of a School – Less than Significant
Schools located within 0.25 mile of the Project site include the YWCA - A Special Place Pre-school and
The Little Schoolhouse Pre-school. No elementary or high schools are located within 0.25 mile of the
City of Santa Rosa
46
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Project site. Project construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials such as fuels,
lubricants, paints and solvents. Routine transport of hazardous materials to and from the Project site
could result in an incremental increase in the potential for accidents. However, Caltrans and the CHP
regulate the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes, including container types and packaging
requirements, as well as licensing and training for truck operators, chemical handlers, and hazardous
waste haulers. Because contractors would be required to comply with existing and future hazardous
materials laws and regulations covering the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, the
impacts associated with the potential to create a significant hazard to schools within 0.25 mile of a school
would be less than significant. Following construction, the Target Store would store and sell commercial
grade materials with hazardous material components, but there would be no new stationary source of
hazardous emissions or handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste, therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
VIII. d) Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites – Less than Significant
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is a planning document used to comply
with CEQA requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.
A search of the data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as
meeting the "Cortese List" requirements was completed to determine if any known hazardous waste
facilities exist on or adjacent to the Project site (EPA 2011). No hazardous materials cases were
recorded within the construction boundary; however, there are several environmental cases located within
0.25 mile of the Project site. These environmental cases and their potential to affect soil and groundwater
conditions in the Project area are summarized in Table VIII-1. Facilities that are permitted to use or store
hazardous materials, but have not had a documented release, are not included in the table.
Table VIII-1.Hazardous Materials Sites within ¼ Mile of Project Site
Environmental
Case Name /
Address
Former EXXON
7-4099
100 Coddingtown
Center
Approximate
Distance from
Project Site
850 feet
northeast of
Project site
City of Santa Rosa
Regulatory
List
LUST
Environmental Case Summary
This facility is an active gas
station located at the southwest
corner of the intersection of
Guerneville Road and Cleveland
Avenue. The facility had leaking
underground storage tanks that
were removed, and cleanup
actions included overexcavation
of contaminated soil and
pumping and treatment of
contaminated groundwater. A
No Further Action Letter from the
Regional Water Board was
issued for the site on July 7,
2010, indicating that cleanup
had been completed and
residual contamination, if any, is
low.
47
Potential to
Affect
Project
Low
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Table VIII-1.Hazardous Materials Sites within ¼ Mile of Project Site
Environmental
Case Name /
Address
Approximate
Distance from
Project Site
Regulatory
List
Cortese
Environmental Case Summary
Potential to
Affect
Project
Low
Goodyear Tire
2021 Cleveland
Avenue
500 feet east of
Project site
This facility included hydraulic
lifts and tanks that were
removed. Cleanup actions
included overexcavation of
contaminated soil. A No Further
Action Letter from the Regional
Water Board was issued for the
site on October 24, 2011,
indicating that cleanup had been
completed and residual
contamination, if any, is low.
Chevron #9-3762
190 Coddingtown
Center
500 feet east of
Project site
LUST
This facility is a former gasoline
LUST case site that was closed
on July 22, 1993, indicating that
cleanup has been completed
and residual contamination, if
any, is low.
Low
Raymond Keoki
1052 Edwards
Drive
<500 feet south
of Project site
LUST
This facility is a former gasoline
LUST case site that was closed
on July 11, 1990, indicating that
cleanup has been completed
and residual contamination, if
any, is low.
Low
Goff Property
1945 Cleveland
Avenue
750 feet
southeast of
Project site.
Cortese
This facility is a former cleanup
program site that involved waste
oils and hydraulic fluids. The
case was closed on May 10,
2006, indicating that cleanup has
been completed and residual
contamination, if any, is low.
Low
Boomers
Fabricare Center
1321 Guerneville
Road
1,300 feet
northwest of
Project site
Cortese
This facility is an active dry
cleaners site with shallow soil
and groundwater contamination.
The facility is currently
undergoing soil investigation and
remediation, which shows
residual contamination is mostly
localized in shallow soils
beneath the building in the area
of the former dry cleaning
machine. Groundwater gradient
recorded in March 2011was
towards the west, away from the
Project site.
Low
Source: Cortese List Data Resources, searched January 2012.
Note: LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank
City of Santa Rosa
48
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
None of the sites listed in Table VIII-1 is located immediately adjacent to the Project site. For five of the
six listed environmental cases, the regulatory agency has determined that no further action is needed,
indicating that cleanup has been completed and residual contamination, if any, is low. For the one active
investigation at 1321 Guerneville Road, located approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the Project site,
residual contamination is mostly localized in shallow soils beneath the building in the area of a former dry
cleaning machine, and the documented groundwater gradient flows towards the west (EGS 2011), which
is away from the Project site. These sites are not considered to have impacted the groundwater to the
extent of creating a regional groundwater plume that would extend to the area underlying the Project site.
The potential to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater at the Project site from these off-site facilities
during construction would, therefore, be less than significant.
VIII. e, f)
Safety Hazard for People Residing or Working Within Two Miles of an Airport – No
Impact
The nearest public or private airport is Sonoma County Airport, located approximately 5.5 miles northwest
of the Project site. The Project site is not located within the referral area or land use plan for the Sonoma
County Airport, or within the vicinity of a private air strip. Therefore, no air-traffic related impact would
occur.
VIII. g)
Impair or Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan – No Impact
Project construction would not extend into adjacent roadways and, therefore, would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan
routes. Please refer to Section XVI, Transportation, for an analysis of emergency access associated with
construction activities.
VIII. h)
Exposure to Wildland Fires – No Impact
The Project site is located on urban land in zones designated as “Non-Fire Hazard” by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE 2008). Therefore, no wildland fire related impact
would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
49
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignifica
nt Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:
a.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c.
d.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?



Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off- site?

Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g.
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h.
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?

i.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

e.
j.
Discussion:
Drainage from the Project site flows west through the City’s storm drain system in a culverted drainage
identified in the City’s Citywide Creek Master Plan as Pomo Creek (Santa Rosa 2007). Pomo Creek
originates near U.S. Highway 101 near Coddingtown Mall. There is one short stretch above ground at the
intersection of Guerneville Road and Range Avenue. The remainder of Pomo Creek is contained within
storm drain pipe until it surfaces in Northwest Community Park approximately 1 mile west, flowing through
the park before joining Paulin Creek. Paulin Creek is a tributary to Piner Creek; Piner Creek is a tributary
to Santa Rosa Creek; and Santa Rosa Creek is a tributary to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which ultimately
flows to the Russian River. The Citywide Creek Master Plan does not identify goals or policies for Pomo
Creek (Santa Rosa 2007).
City of Santa Rosa
50
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
IX. a, c) Violate Water Quality Standards or Cause Substantial Erosion/Siltation – Less than
Significant with Mitigation
Project construction would result in approximately 8.11 acres of land disturbance. Construction activities
such as excavation, grading, and trenching would temporarily disturb the Project area and could result in
erosion if not properly controlled and repaired. Construction could also be a source of chemical
contamination from use of alkaline construction materials (e.g., concrete, mortar, hydrated lime) and
hazardous or toxic materials, such as fuels. Dewatering of the construction work area could be required if
groundwater accumulates in an open trench or excavation area. The discharge of construction
dewatering could result in a source of sediment-laden water to the local storm drain system or sanitary
sewer if not properly controlled. Therefore, the potential to violate water quality standards and degrade
water quality during construction is considered significant.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Prior to construction, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under State Water Resources Control
Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water
Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. The Applicant shall submit
permit registration documents (notice of intent, risk assessment, site maps, SWPPP, annual fee,
and certifications) to the State Water Resources Control Board. The SWPPP shall address
pollutant sources, best management practices, and other requirements specified in Order 20090009-DWQ. The BMPs shall include any measures included in the erosion and sediment control
plans developed for the Project to minimize disturbance after grading or construction. The SWPPP
shall also include dust control practices to prevent wind erosion, sediment tracking and dust
generation by construction equipment. The Applicant shall ensure that a Qualified SWPPP
Practitioner oversees implementation of the SWPPP, including visual inspections, sampling and
analysis, and ensuring overall compliance.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Construction Dewatering
If construction dewatering is required, the Applicant shall evaluate reasonable options for
dewatering management. The following management options shall be considered:

Reuse the water on-site for dust control, compaction, or irrigation.

Retain the water on-site in a grassy or porous area to allow infiltration/evaporation.

Discharge (by permit) to a sanitary sewer or storm drain (this option may require a
temporary method to filter sediment-laden water prior to discharge).
If discharging to the sanitary sewer, the Applicant shall obtain a one-time discharge permit from the
City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department. Measures may include characterizing the discharge and
ensuring filtering methods and monitoring to verify that the discharge is compliant with the City’s
local wastewater discharge requirements.
If discharging to a storm drain (i.e., surface waters), the Project shall comply with Regional Water
Quality Control Board Order No. R1-2009-0045, Waste Discharge Requirements for Low Threat
Discharges to Surface Waters in the North Coast Region. This permit would only be required if
groundwater is discharged to the storm drain system. In such case, the Applicant shall submit
permit registration documents and develop a Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention plan
to characterize the discharge and to identify specific BMPs to control the discharge, such as
City of Santa Rosa
51
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
sediment controls to ensure that excessive sediment is not discharged, and flow controls to prevent
erosion and flooding downstream of the discharge.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) and HYD-2 (Construction
Dewatering) would reduce impacts relative to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements
by requiring compliance with applicable permits for discharge of storm water runoff associated with
construction and groundwater dewatering. This would include placement of erosion control measures
and general site and materials management to reduce soil loss and manage groundwater dewatering.
With implementation of mitigation the impact would be less than significant.
Refer to Impact IX.d,e,f) for a summary of operation-related impacts.
IX. b)
Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater Recharge –
Less than Significant
During construction, dewatering of the construction work area could be required if groundwater
accumulates in an excavation area. Dewatering typically involves pumping water out of the excavation
area to lower groundwater levels to the extent needed. No substantial lowering of the local groundwater
table would occur from such temporary dewatering; therefore, the impact from construction dewatering is
considered less than significant.
Following construction, the Project would obtain potable water from the City of Santa Rosa. The City
obtains the majority of its water from entitlement from the Sonoma County Water Agency (18,514 acre
feet in 2010) and a lesser amount from two active City groundwater wells (902 acre feet in 2010) (Santa
Rosa 2011). The Project would increase water demands, but would not result in a substantial effect on
the groundwater table or groundwater supplies. In addition, the Project would not interfere with
groundwater recharge as the Project site is currently impervious and does not provide groundwater
recharge. The operational impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
IX. d, e, f)
Substantially Increase Runoff Resulting in Flooding, Exceed the Capacity of the Storm
Drain System, or Degrade Water Quality – Less than Significant
Drainage from the Project site flows west through the City’s storm drain system in a culverted drainage
named Pomo Creek. Pomo Creek connects to Paulin Creek at Northwest Community Park, just east of
Marlow Road. Paulin Creek is a tributary to Piner Creek; Piner Creek is a tributary to Santa Rosa Creek;
and Santa Rosa Creek is a tributary to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which ultimately flows to the Russian
River. Santa Rosa Creek has been listed pursuant to Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act as
water-quality impaired for sediment/siltation and temperature (EPA 2010). The Laguna de Santa Rosa is
listed as an impaired waterbody for nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, sediment, temperature,
mercury, and indicator bacteria (EPA 2010).
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. A TMDL for the Laguna de Santa
Rosa has been completed for high levels of ammonia and low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and
TMDLs for nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and sediment are currently under
development. The entire Russian River watershed is impaired for sediment and temperature.
Impairments for pathogenic indicator bacteria apply to the Santa Rosa Creek and Laguna de Santa Rosa
segments of the watershed. A Sediment TMDL Implementation Policy was adopted in 2004. A TMDL for
temperature in the Russian River is currently planned, as is a cleanup plan for pathogens.
City of Santa Rosa
52
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
As summarized in the Project Description, construction would result in a net reduction of approximately
21,785 square feet of impervious surfaces from the existing condition, with the difference going to new
landscaped areas on-site. Following construction, the Project site would include approximately 7.42
acres of impervious area. Runoff from the impervious areas could result in mobilization of oil, trash,
landscape chemicals, sediment, and metals in local storm water. Commercial projects in the City of
Santa Rosa that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area are subject to the City’s
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements. The Project is being designed in
accordance with the City’s SUSMP Guidelines, which aim to address the impact of development on storm
water quality and runoff volume using the basic principles of Low Impact Development (LID) to
decentralize storm water treatment and to integrate it into the overall site design. The Project’s
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan includes the use of landscape-based infiltration LID measures
that treat and infiltrate storm water as close to the source as possible, including vegetated swales,
bioretention basins, and flow-through planters, as well as storm drain inlet filters. By reducing overall
impermeable surface areas, increasing surface water infiltration, and minimizing surface water runoff
during storm events in accordance with City policies, impacts related to flooding, storm drain capacity,
and water quality would be less than significant.
IX. g, h) Place Housing and Structures within a 100-Year Flood Zone – No Impact
The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (Santa Rosa 2009a). Therefore, no
impact from a flood hazard area or flood flows would occur.
IX. i) Flooding from a Levee or Dam – No Impact
The Project site is not located within an inundation zone of a nearby levee or dam (Santa Rosa 2009). No
impact would occur.
IX. j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow – No Impact
The Project site is not located near any isolated bodies of water and would not be subject to inundation by
seiche, which are seismically-induced waves in lakes and reservoirs. The Project site and its
surroundings are located on flat land and would not be subject to mudflows. The Project site is located
over 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is not within a tsunami evacuation area, nor would it be subject
to potential tsunami impacts (Cal EMA 2009). Therefore, no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflows
would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
53
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community?

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
Project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

c.

Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion:
X. a) Physically Divide an Established Community – No Impact
The Project would replace an existing structure located entirely within a developed site that is surrounded
by other development, with no off-site improvements needed. Therefore, the Project would not physically
divide an established community. No impact would occur.
X. b) Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies or Regulations – No Impact
The Project is consistent with the existing general commercial and office/commercial development zoning
of the property. The Project would also be consistent with the retail/business services land use proposed
for the property in the Draft North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan, which has not yet been
adopted. No impact would occur.
X. c) Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan – No Impact
No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plans exists for the Project area. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
City of Santa Rosa
54
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?

Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion:
XI. a, b)
Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource of Value to the Region
or Delineated by a General Plan, Specific Plan or other Land Use Plan – No Impact
The City of Santa Rosa General Plan does not identify any State-designated (MRZ-2) or locally important
mineral resource locations in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not create an
adverse impact upon mineral resources.
City of Santa Rosa
55
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE
Would the Project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

c.
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?


e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project expose people residing or working
in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
f.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the Project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?


Discussion:
XII. a)
Exposure to Noise in Excess of Established Standards – Less than Significant
Local Noise Standards and Significance Thresholds
The following goals and policies established in the Santa Rosa General Plan provide noise standards that
are applicable to the proposed Project:
Goal NS-B - Maintain an acceptable community noise level to protect the health and comfort of
people living, working, and/or visiting in Santa Rosa, while maintaining a visually-appealing
community.
Policy NS-B-3 - Prevent new stationary and transportation noise sources from creating a
nuisance in existing development. Use a comprehensive program of noise prevention through
planning and mitigation, and consider noise impacts as a crucial factor in project approval.
Policy NS-B-14 – Discourage new projects that have potential to create ambient noise levels
more than 5 dBA DNL above existing background, within 250 feet of sensitive receptors.
In addition, Chapter 17-16 of the City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 17-16.20) states that
“It is unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus
or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level
at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than five decibels”
(Santa Rosa 1989). Table XII-1 presents the ambient base noise levels established in the Municipal
City of Santa Rosa
56
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Code. Although the City Code does not define the acoustical time descriptor such as Leq (the average
noise level) or Lmax (the maximum noise level) that is associated with the above limits, a reasonable
interpretation of the City Code would identify the ambient base noise level criteria as an average noise
level (Leq). To comply with the Code, noise generated by the proposed Target Store would need to be
limited to 60 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, and 55 dBA Leq between the hours of
10:00 PM and 7:00 AM at the adjacent multi-family residences.
Table XII-1. City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code – Ambient Base Noise Levels
Zone
Daytime Level (dBA)
Evening Level (dBA)
Nighttime Level (dBA)
Single-family
Residential
55
50
45
Multi-family Residential
55
55
50
Office and Commercial
60
60
55
Intensive Commercial
65
65
55
Industrial
70
70
70
Source: City of Santa Rosa, City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code 17-16.030, 1989
Existing Noise Environment and Sensitive Receptors
The existing noise environment at the Project site results primarily from traffic along U.S. Highway 101
(US 101), Cleveland Avenue, Range Avenue, Edwards Avenue, and local traffic on Coddingtown Mall
access roadways. Based on the noise monitoring survey, the Project site is currently exposed to noise
levels ranging from 58 to 61 dBA DNL9. Typical intermittent maximum noise levels ranged from 65 to 85
dBA Lmax during the daytime and 55 to 75 dBA Lmax during the nighttime.
The nearest adjacent residences to the Project site are the Los Robles Apartments, located at their
closest point approximately 125 feet south of the proposed Target parking lot. The existing noise levels at
the Los Robles Apartments and surrounding areas are primarily due to local and distant traffic, existing
activities occurring at Coddingtown Mall, and local residential noise sources, with ambient noise levels of
57 to 58 dBA DNL, and intermittent maximum noise levels ranging from 65 to 85 Lmax during the daytime
and 55 to 75 Lmax during the nighttime. Other nearby receptors include office buildings north of Edwards
Avenue, located approximately 220 feet south of the parking lot, and residences south of Edwards
Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of the parking lot.
Pertinent Project Information
The predominant operational noise sources associated with the proposed Target Store would include
additional parking lot activity, increased truck deliveries and trash collection, additional loading dock
activities at the east end of the store, additional rooftop mechanical equipment, and a new trash
compactor.
Normal business hours would be 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM Monday through Saturday and 8:00 AM to 10:00
PM on Sunday. After-hours maintenance and stocking would occur between 11:00 PM and 8:00 AM
Monday through Saturday and 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Sunday. Special holiday hours would occur the
week before Thanksgiving through December 26th, with the store open from 4:00 AM to midnight Monday
9
DNL (Day-Night Sound Level) represents the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10
decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
City of Santa Rosa
57
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
through Saturday and 8:00 AM to midnight on Sunday.
Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
The store would be closed on Easter,
Compatibility of the Project with the Existing Noise Environment
The City of Santa Rosa General Plan Land Use Compatibility Standards identify 70 dBA DNL as the
“normally acceptable” noise limit for commercial retail uses (Santa Rosa 2009a). At the setback of the
proposed Target store, which at its closest point would be approximately 800 feet from the center line of
US 101, noise levels would be approximately 59 to 62 dBA DNL. The proposed Target store would
therefore be compatible with Santa Rosa’s noise and land use compatibility standards for the noise
environment expected on site. The impact would be less than significant.
Project Impacts
The predominant operational noise sources associated with the proposed Project would include additional
parking lot activity, increased truck deliveries and trash collection, additional loading dock activities at the
east end of the store, additional rooftop mechanical equipment, and a new trash compactor. The
Coddingtown Mall parking lot would continue to be cleaned by a street sweeper in the same manner that
it is now; therefore, the Target Store would not increase noise from sweeper trucks. An evaluation of the
different operational noise activities of the Project, and the potential effect on adjacent land uses, is
provided below.
Trucks
For the proposed Project, trucks would access the site from the signalized intersection to Coddingtown
Mall at Guerneville Road and Cleveland Avenue. Trucks would travel west toward the docking area
passing just south of the existing Macy’s Store, approximately 325 feet from the nearest residential
property. Truck trips would be subject to store volume and seasonal variations. Target distribution center
tractor-trailer trucks deliver 90% of the store merchandise and average approximately 5 to 7 deliveries per
week. Target food distribution center refrigerated trucks average approximately 3 to 4 deliveries per
week. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed Target store would receive 8 to 11 deliveries per week,
or 1 to 2 deliveries per day. Refrigerated trucks unload at the dock for approximately one hour.
Receiving dock hours for tractor-trailer trucks from Target distribution centers and contract carriers are
typically between 4:00 AM and midnight Monday through Sunday. All Target store locations have a no
idling policy that requires diesel truck engines to be turned off after five minutes, and distribution center
trucks do not use audible back-up warning signals. In addition to tractor-trailer trucks, the Target Store
would receive local carrier and vendor short trucks, vans, mail, and parcel delivery trucks at a rate of
approximately 8 to 12 trucks per day. Receiving dock hours for local carriers and vendors are 8:00 AM to
midnight, Monday through Friday. Trash and bales of cardboard would likely be picked up about once per
week.
Low speed truck noise results from a combination of engine, exhaust, and tire noise as well as releases of
compressed air associated with truck/trailer air-brakes. The loading dock of the proposed Target Store
would be designed to allow heavy-duty trucks to back up to loading bays, with all loading and unloading
taking place within the building. The truck docks would be recessed into the ground and will be equipped
with rubber gasket seals to reduce noise generated during loading activities. The use of rubberized
gasket type seals at the loading bay doors allows little loading noise to escape. Based on field
observations at similar facilities, typical loading noise from trailers backed up to rubber gasket seals would
be inaudible at a distance of 100 feet.
City of Santa Rosa
58
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Heavy Duty Delivery and Trash Collection Trucks
Heavy duty truck deliveries and trash collection trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of 70 to
75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Smaller delivery trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of
60 to 65 dBA Lmax at the same distance. The noise level of backup alarms can vary depending on the
type of the sound, but maximum noise levels are typically in the range of 65 to 75 dBA Lmax at a distance
of 50 feet. Maximum noise levels generated by these types of trucks circulating approximately 325 feet
from the nearest residential property are calculated to reach 54 to 59 dBA Lmax.
Refrigeration Trucks and Truck Refrigeration Units
Maximum noise levels generated by refrigeration trucks are calculated to reach 46 dBA Lmax at the
property line of the nearest residences. The truck refrigeration units would typically cycle on for a period
of approximately ten to fifteen minutes in order to maintain a set temperature within the freezer and
refrigerated trailer. Once the internal temperature is reached, the units shut off for a period of about eight
to eleven minutes until the cycle begins again. It is estimated that up to two deliveries from refrigeration
trucks could occur per day, that the trucks would each be unloaded over a period of about one hour, and
that the refrigeration cycle would turn on for 10 to 15 minutes approximately three times during each onehour unloading period, totaling 60 to 90 cumulative minutes of refrigeration unit noise per day, on
average. It is calculated that the operation of the refrigeration units (conservatively assuming an average
of 40 minutes of refrigeration unit noise per hour) would result in hourly average noise levels of 44 dBA
Leq at the nearest receivers directly to the south.
Vendor Trucks
Most deliveries by the smaller vendor trucks would not occur at the recessed loading bays but rather at
the delivery service doors located adjacent to the main loading dock. Receiving dock hours for local
carriers and vendors are 8:00 AM to midnight, Monday through Friday. The maximum noise level
generated by unloading activities associated with the vendor trucks would be 49 to 54 dBA Lmax at the
nearest receptors to the south.
Trash Compactor
A trash compactor would be located on the east side of the store adjacent to the proposed loading bays.
Trash compactors typically generate maximum noise levels of 50 to 60 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The trash
compactor would be located approximately 400 feet from the nearest residential property to the south.
The maximum noise level at the nearest residential property generated by the trash compactor is
calculated to be 42 dBA Lmax during operation.
Parking Lot Activity
Noise associated with the use of the parking lot would include noise sources such as vehicular circulation,
car alarms, door slams, and human voices. The nearest residences to the south are located just over 100
feet from the nearest portion of the proposed parking lot. The hourly equivalent noise level resulting from
all of these noise-generating activities in a busy parking lot typically ranges from 40 dBA to 50 dBA Leq at
a distance of 100 feet from the parking area.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
Rooftop mounted mechanical equipment would include heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
equipment, as well as equipment used for refrigeration purposes. Noise from new rooftop equipment was
analyzed using the data provided by the project applicant including a typical roof plan showing the
equipment locations, building elevations, and equipment sound levels. Noise levels were calculated at a
height of five feet above the ground at the property line of the nearest residential land uses and 15 feet
City of Santa Rosa
59
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
above the ground to simulate the noise exposure at the two-story residential apartment units. The
attenuating effects of distance and rooftop parapet walls (assumed to be a minimum of 3 feet high) were
calculated separately for each piece of equipment (or group of equipment where appropriate) and then
summed to calculate the total noise level at each receiver. The results of the calculations showed that
operational noise levels from new rooftop equipment would result in noise levels of 47 to 49 dBA Leq at a
height of five feet above the ground at the property line and 50 to 51 dBA Leq at the nearest two-story
residential apartment units.
Impact on Ambient Noise Level
Table XII-2 summarizes the intermittent maximum noise levels and average noise levels that would be
generated by the operational activities described above at the nearest residential property. As
summarized in Table XII-2, the combined noise from the Project when the individual noise generating
activities are assumed to be active simultaneously is 55 dBA Leq. Not all of these activities would occur at
night, so it is reasonable to assume that the nighttime Leq would be somewhat less. The combined noise
levels that could be generated by the Project at peak activity would not exceed the 60 dBA Leq limit
between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, and the 55 dBA Leq limit between the hours of 10:00 PM
and 7:00 AM at the adjacent multi-family residences set by the City’s Noise Ordinance (see Local Noise
Standards and Significance Thresholds above). Operational noise associated with the Project would be
less at the offices and residences further south because of increased distance from the noise sources and
shielding provided by intervening structures. Therefore, operational noise from the Project would not
increase noise levels above the City’s noise ordinance limits, and the impact would be less than
significant.
Table XII-2. Operational Noise Levels
Operational Activity
Noise Level at
Nearest Receptor
Heavy Duty Delivery and Trash Collection Trucks
54-59 dBA Lmax
Refrigeration Trucks
46 dBA Lmax
Vendor Trucks
49-54 dBA Lmax
Trash Compactor
42 dBA Lmax
Truck Refrigeration Units
44 dBA Leq
Parking Lot Activity
40-50 dBA Leq
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
50-51 dBA Leq
Combined Average Noise Level, assuming all noise
generating sources are active at the same time.
55 dBA Leq
Source: Illingworth and Rodkin, 2012
Under General Plan Policy NS-B-14, a significant noise impact to a residential use would occur if the
Project increases ambient noise levels by 5 dBA DNL or more. The following discussion addresses the
impacts of the Project’s noise generating activities when taken together in terms of average day/night
noise levels, or DNL.
The City of Santa Rosa General Plan Land Use Compatibility Standards identifies 65 dBA DNL as the
“normally acceptable” noise limit for multi-family residential uses (Santa Rosa 2009a). The existing
average day/night noise level near the nearest residential land use is 57 to 58 dBA DNL. The combined
City of Santa Rosa
60
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
noise from the activities and equipment of the proposed Project was determined to increase the DNL at
nearby residences by less than 2 dBA. Since the City’s 65 dBA DNL standard for multi-family residential
uses would not be exceeded and the Project would not increase noise levels at the nearest residences by
5 dbA DNL, the overall operational noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than
significant.
XII. b)
Exposure to Groundborne Vibration or Noise – Less than Significant
Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and other impact devices such as
pavement breakers or blasting, causes groundborne vibration, which can result in effects ranging from
annoyance of people to damage of structures. The proposed Project would not include pile driving,
blasting, or other types of construction methods that would generate substantial groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building
framing and finishing. Major equipment anticipated during project construction would include dozers,
graders, rollers, pavers, loaders, track-hoes, cranes, lifts, and dump trucks. If great enough, the energy
transmitted through the ground as vibration during operation of this equipment could result in damage to
the structural integrity of adjacent shops during building demolition.
To assess the potential for structural damage of adjacent buildings associated with groundborne vibration,
the vibratory ground motion in the vicinity of the affected structures is measured in terms of peak particle
velocity (PPV) in the vertical and horizontal directions (vector sum), typically in units of inches per second
(in/sec). For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5
in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec
PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern,
and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV for ancient buildings or buildings that are documented to be
structurally weakened. All buildings in the project vicinity are assumed to be structurally sound, but they
may or may not have been designed to modern engineering standards. Therefore, this analysis
establishes 0.3 in/sec PPV as the significance threshold for construction vibration to avoid damage to
buildings from vibration sources.
Based on the vibration source levels for Project-related construction equipment, vibration levels would be
expected to be 0.2 in/sec PPV or less, which would be below the 0.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold.
Therefore, the impact of groundbourne vibration on the structural integrity of adjacent buildings during
demolition of the Gottschalks building would be less than significant. IIn areas where vibration would not
be expected to cause structural damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any
type of construction, this would be anticipated and it would not be considered significant given the
intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration
(demolition and use of jackhammers and other high power tools). The impact would be less than
significant.
XII. c)
Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise – Less than Significant
Traffic volume data for thirteen study area intersections, summarized below, were reviewed to calculate
the relative increase in traffic noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses that would be attributable to the
Project. The study area intersections were as follows:
1. Guerneville Road/Range Avenue
2. Guerneville Road/Steele Lane
3. Guerneville Road/Cleveland Avenue
City of Santa Rosa
61
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
4. Steele Lane/US 101 South
5. Steele Lane/US 101 North
6. West Steele Lane/Illinois Avenue-County Center Drive
7. Coddingtown Driveway/Cleveland Avenue
8. Jennings Avenue/Range Avenue
9. Jennings Avenue/Cleveland Avenue
10. Frances Street/Cleveland Avenue
11. College Avenue/Cleveland Avenue
12. College Avenue /US 101 South
13. College Avenue /US 101 North
Traffic volumes under the “Existing” and “Existing Plus Project” traffic scenarios for the weekday PM peak
hour and the weekend mid-day peak hour were compared as part of the analysis (see Section XVI,
Transportation/Traffic for a summary of the traffic volumes).
Per General Plan Policy NS-B-14, a noise impact would be identified at noise-sensitive land uses where
the noise level increase would be 5 dBA DNL or greater above existing background noise levels. Noise
levels from increases in traffic volume along the roadways listed above would increase by 0 to 2 dBA DNL
as a result of the project, which is below the 5 dBA DNL limit. The impact would therefore be less than
significant.
XII. d)
Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise – Less than Significant with
Mitigation
The City of Santa Rosa does not have quantitative noise limits for construction activities. However, the
City’s Municipal Code (Section 17-16.030) limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 10:00 PM, seven days a week.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of
construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between
construction noise sources and noise sensitive areas. Noise generated by construction activities would
be the greatest during demolition, site grading, and excavation for underground utilities. Typical
maximum noise levels from demolition, grading, and excavation activities range from 70 to 90 dBA Lmax at
a distance of 50 feet from the source. The typical range of noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from
active construction sites would be 65 to 85 dBA Leq.
As described in the Project Description, external construction work would be limited to the hours of 7:00
AM to 5:00 PM, seven days a week. Once the building’s shell in completed, interior construction activities
would occur from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, as allowed in Municipal Code Section 17-16.030. Therefore, the
Project would not conflict with the City’s construction hour limits and would not interfere with any nighttime
activities normally associated with residential uses, such as sleep interference.
The nearest noise sensitive receivers to the existing Gottschalks building to be demolished are located
approximately 250 feet away. During grading and paving activities for the parking lot renovation, the
nearest residential receivers would be located approximately 115 feet away. Typical hourly average
noise levels that would be experienced at the nearest residences to the south would be 51 to 71 dBA Leq
during building demolition and 57 to 77 dBA Leq during parking lot renovation. These noise levels would
are loud enough to interfere with speech at the nearby multi-family residences. Therefore, construction
noise from demolition activities would result in a significant impact.
City of Santa Rosa
62
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Construction noise associated with the Project would be less at the nearest residences to the west and
further south of Edwards Avenue because of increased distance from the noise source and shielding
provided by intervening structures. Construction noise levels received at distant receivers located to the
west and south would generally be at or below ambient daytime traffic noise levels generated by Edwards
Avenue and Range Avenue.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Reduce Construction-Related Noise
Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the City of
Santa Rosa Municipal Code. Construction noise control measures may include, but would not be
limited to the following:

All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers which
are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.

Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.

At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment
shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors.

All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that the emitted noise is directed
away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest
distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during all project construction.

Owners and occupants of residential and non-residential properties located within 300 feet of
the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.

The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem (e.g., to
ensure that the measures above are implemented). A telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Reduce Construction-Related Noise) would reduce impacts at the nearby
multi-family residences and other adjacent non-residential uses from temporary construction noise by
requiring mufflers, quiet equipment, and proper location and orientation of equipment to reduce
construction noise levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be expected to provide
up to 5 to 10 dBA of noise reduction at the nearest sensitive receptors during construction. In addition,
the duration of exposure to construction noise would vary on a day-to-day basis depending on the specific
activities occurring and the equipment necessary to complete the task. As noted above, most people
living in suburban or urban environments have accepted that a certain amount of construction activity will
take place from time to time and that a reasonable amount of construction is necessary for new projects.
Therefore, the temporary increase in ambient noise levels from construction activity following mitigation
City of Santa Rosa
63
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
XII. e, f)
Exposure of People Residing or Working near an Airport or Private Airstrip to
Excessive Noise Levels – No Impact
The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or within
the vicinity of an active private airstrip. Therefore, no impact from air-traffic related noise would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
64
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

c.

Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
XIII. a) Induce Substantial Population Growth – No Impact
Projects are considered growth-inducing if they provide new housing, new employment, or expand
existing infrastructure. The Project would not provide new housing or expand infrastructure. The Project,
however, would provide new employment. The workforce for the proposed Target store would consist of
150 to 200 employees. It is anticipated that the new jobs would not result in a significant in-migration of
employees who will need to find housing within the Santa Rosa area. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
indicates a Santa Rosa-Petaluma area workforce of 250,700 people, with approximately 22,300 people
unemployed, for an unemployment rate of 8.9 percent in December 2011 (Bureau of Labor Statistics
2012). Given the unemployment rate, there would be a sufficient labor pool in the area to fill the number
of jobs that would be created by the Project. This new employment would not induce population growth.
XIII. b, c) Displace Housing and People – No Impact
The Project would replace vacant commercial space at Coddingtown Mall. It would not displace existing
housing or people and would not require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact
would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
65
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:





a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c.
Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Discussion:
XIV. a, b) Impacts Associated with New or Altered Fire or Police Protection – No Impact
Fire and police protection services would be provided by the City of Santa Rosa. The nearest fire station
is located 0.8 mile to the east on Lewis Road. Other fire stations within 1.5 miles of the Project site are
located to the north and south along Coffey Lane and Stony Point Road, respectively. The Project site is
located within the Santa Rosa Police Beat 1 patrol area. The Project would result in a net reduction in
retail space compared to the area currently served, therefore, no additional fire or police personnel or
equipment would be necessary to adequately serve the Project. No impact would occur.
XIV. c) Impacts Associated with New or Altered Schools – No Impact
The Project site is located within the Santa Rosa School District. Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, the
Applicant would be required to pay school impact fees established to offset potential impacts on school
facilities. Payment of the fees mandated under Senate Bill 50 is prescribed by the statute, with payment
of the fees deemed full and complete mitigation. This fee would be assessed when the Project’s building
permit would be issued. Therefore, the Project would have no impact to area schools.
XIV. d, e) Impacts Associated with New or Altered Parks or Other Facilities – No Impact
The Project is not residential in nature and would not require park acquisition or park development fees to
be paid. The workforce for the proposed Target store would consist of 150 to 200 employees, which
based on current unemployment rates, would not induce population growth that would result in a need for
new parks or other facilities (refer to Impact XIII.a above). No impact would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
66
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?

b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

Discussion:
XV. a, b)
Increase in the Use of Existing Facilities or Development of Recreation Facilities
Resulting in Substantial Physical Deterioration – No Impact
The Project is not residential in nature and would not require park acquisition or park development. The
workforce for the proposed Target store would consist of 150 to 200 employees, which based on current
unemployment rates, would not induce population growth that would result in a need for new parks (refer
to Impact XIII.a above). Therefore, no impact to existing recreational resources would occur and no
impact would occur from construction or expansion of new recreational facilities, as none would be
needed for the Project.
City of Santa Rosa
67
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?

c.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

f.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?

Discussion:
The following impact analyses are based on a Traffic Impact Study conducted specific to this Project by
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W-Trans), dated April 18, 2012. It is included with this Initial
Study as Appendix E.
XVI. a)
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance, Policy, or Program Establishing
Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System – Less than
Significant
The City of Santa Rosa's adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standard is contained in Santa Rosa General
Plan 2035. Standard TD-1 states that the City will try to maintain a level of service (LOS) D or better
along all major corridors. Exceptions to meeting this standard are allowed where attainment would result
in significant environmental degradation; where topography or environmental impacts make the
improvement impossible; or where attainment would ensure loss of an area's unique character. The
LOSs used in these analyses are defined in the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual and are summarized in Appendix E.
City of Santa Rosa
68
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Although the City’s standard does not specify criteria for intersections, for the purposes of this analysis, a
minimum operation of LOS D for the overall operation of signalized intersections was applied as the
threshold of significance for the short-term conditions analysis. This Project’s study area consists of the
following study intersections as well as the sections of Guerneville Road, Range Avenue, Edwards
Avenue, and Cleveland Avenue surrounding the Project site.
1. Guerneville Road/Range Avenue
2. Guerneville Road/West Steele Lane-Coddingtown Driveway
3. Guerneville Road/Cleveland Avenue
4. Steele Lane/US 101 South
5. Steele Lane/US 101 North
6. Steele Lane/Illinois Avenue-County Center Drive
7. Coddingtown Driveway/Cleveland Avenue
8. Jennings Avenue/Range Avenue
9. Jennings Avenue/Cleveland Avenue
10. Frances Street/Cleveland Avenue
11. College Avenue/Cleveland Avenue
12. College Avenue/US 101 South
13. College Avenue/US 101 North
These study intersections are described in detail in Appendix E. In establishing the study area,
intersections of streets identified in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 as either Regional/Arterial Streets
(e.g., Guerneville Road) or Transitional/Collector Streets (e.g., Jennings Avenue) were included.
Consideration was given to evaluating the intersections of Edwards Avenue at both Range Avenue and
Cleveland Avenue since a minimal amount of Project traffic could use this roadway, but a review of
operation based on count data from 2008 for the evening peak hour indicated that these two intersections
at either end of the block are currently operating at LOS B or C, well above the minimum threshold of LOS
D. Further, a sensitivity analysis indicates that volumes would need to increase by at least 50 percent on
all movements for operation to deteriorate to unacceptable levels. Since this preliminary assessment
indicated that no improvements would be necessary, it was determined that these two minor intersections
did not warrant further study.
Volume data was collected for the majority of the intersections in October 2011, though Steele Lane/
County Center Drive/Illinois Avenue and Cleveland Avenue/Coddingtown Drive were counted in February
2012. Counts during both time periods were taken while local schools were in session.
Operating conditions during the weekday PM and weekend mid-day peak periods were evaluated as
these time periods reflect the highest traffic volumes areawide and for the proposed Project. The evening
peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 PM and typically reflects the highest level of congestion of the
day during the homeward bound commute, while the weekend mid-day peak occurs between 12:00 and
2:00 PM.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic
volumes during the PM and Saturday mid-day peak periods. This condition does not include Projectgenerated traffic volumes. Under existing conditions, all 13 study intersections are operating acceptably
City of Santa Rosa
69
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
under the applied LOS standard. A summary of the intersection LOS calculations is presented in Table
XVI-1.
Table XVI-1. Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Study Intersection
Approach (1)
Existing Conditions
PM Peak
MD Peak
Delay (2)
LOS (3)
Delay (2)
LOS (3)
1.
Guerneville Rd/Range Ave
29.5
C
30.2
C
2.
Guerneville Rd/W. Steele Lane
24.6
C
29.6
C
3.
Guerneville Rd/Cleveland Ave
34.2
C
37.0
D
4.
Steele Ln/US 101 South
23.2
C
24.6
C
5.
Steele Ln/US 101 North
28.2
C
26.4
C
6.
Steele Ln/Illinois Ave-County Center Dr
23.2
C
16.9
B
7.
Coddingtown Dwy/Cleveland Ave
5.7
A
7.1
A
8.
Jennings Ave/Range Ave
8.2
A
7.9
A
9.
Jennings Ave/Cleveland Ave
0.8
A
0.6
A
Eastbound Approach
10.9
B
11.1
B
10.
Frances St/Cleveland Ave
5.6
A
5.4
A
11.
College Ave/Cleveland Ave
27.4
C
26.2
C
12.
College Ave/US 101 South
23.2
C
12.5
B
13.
College Ave/US 101 North
21.7
C
17.2
B
Notes:
(1) Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
(2) Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle.
(3) LOS = Level of Service.
Existing plus Project Conditions
For purposes of estimating the number of new trips (i.e., trip generation) that the proposed Project could
be expected to generate, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition (2008),
was used. This standard reference is used by jurisdictions throughout the country and is based on actual
trip generation studies performed at numerous locations in areas of various populations.
The trip generation derivations for weekdays and Saturdays are shown in Tables XVI-2 and XVI-3. The
Project, including demolition of some of the currently occupied small shops as well as the Gottschalk’s
building (a portion of which was occupied when the traffic counts were taken), is expected to increase
average weekday traffic by approximately 1,818 daily trips from existing levels, including 138 added trips
during the PM peak hour (see Table XVI-2). On Saturdays, the Project is estimated to add an average of
City of Santa Rosa
70
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
2,018 new trips per day, with 156 occurring during the mid-day peak hour (see Table XVI-3). These
figures were calculated based on the proposed Project’s traffic generation rates as a “free-standing
superstore” compared against the existing mall space (i.e., “shopping center”) to be demolished (see
Appendix E, beginning page 17).
Table XVI-2. Weekday Trip Generation Summary (Existing plus Project Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Weekday
PM Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
Rate
Trips
In
Out
53.13
7,623
4.61
661
324
337
Target Store
Free-Standing Superstore
143.487
ksf(1)
Pass-by(2)
Diverted Link
(3)
-17%
-1,296
-112
-55
-57
-35%
-2,668
-231
-113
-118
Subtotal
3,659
318
156
162
228
112
116
-489
-48
-24
-24
1,841
180
88
92
1,818
138
68
70
Demolition of Occupied Space
(4)
Shopping Center
74.416 ksf(1)
Pass-by
(2)
31.30
-21%
Subtotal
Net New Trips (Existing plus Project)
Notes:
2,330
3.07
(1) ksf = thousand square feet
(2) Pass-by = Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip
destination without a root diversion.
(3) Diverted Link = Diverted linked trips are trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways
within the vicinity of the generator but that require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain
access to the site.
(4) Occupied at the time of the October, 2011, traffic counts.
The pattern used to allocate new Project trips to the street network was based on data contained in the
Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan, which used the County of Sonoma’s
SCTM/07 model. Trip distribution assumptions for the Station Area Plan, which would encompass the
Project site, were based on a “Select Zone” model run. The model-generated distribution of trips was
combined with knowledge of the roadway network and consideration of current traffic patterns to
determine the anticipated distribution of traffic associated with the proposed Project.
As shown in Table XVI-4, the 13 study intersections would be expected to continue operating acceptably
at the same LOSs upon the addition of Project-generated traffic (presented above in Tables XVI-2 and
XVI-3), with the exception of Guerneville Road/Cleveland Avenue. However, this intersection would
remain at an acceptable LOS of D. Impacts are similarly expected to be imperceptible at the intersections
of Edwards Avenue with Range Avenue and Cleveland Avenue based on the results indicated for the
Jennings Avenue intersections.
City of Santa Rosa
71
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Table XVI-3. Saturday Trip Generation Summary (Existing plus Project Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Saturday
Rate
Trips
Mid-day Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
In
Out
5.64
809
405
404
Target Store
143.487 ksf(1) 64.07
9,193
Pass-by(2)
-17%
-1,563
-138
-69
-69
Diverted Link(3)
-35%
-3,218
-283
-142
-141
4,413
388
194
194
294
153
141
-637
-62
-32
-30
2,395
232
121
111
2,018
156
73
83
Subtotal
Demolition of Occupied Space (4)
Shopping Center
Pass-by(2)
74.416 ksf(1)
40.75
3,032
-21%
Subtotal
Note:
3.95
(2) Pass-by = Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip
destination without a root diversion.
(3) Diverted Link = Diverted linked trips are trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within
the vicinity of the generator but that require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access
to the site.
(4) Occupied at the time of the October, 2011, traffic counts.
Table XVI-4. Summary of Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level
of Service Calculations
Study Intersection
Approach(1)
Existing Conditions
PM Peak
Existing plus Project
MD Peak
PM Peak
Delay(2) LOS (3) Delay(2) LOS (3) Delay(2)
MD Peak
LOS(3)
Delay(2)
LOS(3)
1.
Guerneville Rd/Range Ave
29.5
C
30.2
C
29.0
C
31.2
C
2.
Guerneville Rd/W Steele Lane
24.6
C
29.6
C
25.3
C
29.8
C
3.
Guerneville Rd/Cleveland Ave
34.2
C
37.0
D
43.0
D
47.1
D
4.
Steele Ln/US 101 South
23.2
C
24.6
C
25.1
C
26.5
C
5.
Steele Ln/US 101 North
28.2
C
26.4
C
29.9
C
28.0
C
6.
Steele Ln/Illinois-County Center
23.2
C
16.9
B
22.6
C
16.8
B
7.
Coddingtown Dwy/Cleveland Ave
5.7
A
7.1
A
18.3
B
18.5
B
City of Santa Rosa
72
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Study Intersection
Approach(1)
(continued)
Existing Conditions
PM Peak
MD Peak
PM Peak
MD Peak
Delay(2) LOS (3) Delay(2) LOS (3) Delay(2) LOS (3) Delay(2) LOS (3)
8.
Jennings Ave/Range Ave
8.2
A
7.9
A
8.3
A
8.0
A
9.
Jennings Ave/Cleveland Ave
0.8
A
0.6
A
0.8
A
0.6
A
Eastbound Approach
10.9
B
11.1
B
11.0
B
11.2
B
10.
Frances St/Cleveland Ave
5.6
A
5.4
A
11.1
B
8.7
A
11.
College Ave/Cleveland Ave
27.4
C
26.2
C
30.0
C
28.3
C
12.
College Ave/US 101 South
23.2
C
12.5
B
22.0
C
18.4
B
13.
College Ave/US 101 North
21.7
C
17.2
B
21.6
C
18.4
B
Notes: (1) Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics.
(2) Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle.
(3) LOS = Level of Service
Future Cumulative Conditions
This analysis of Future Cumulative Conditions tiers from the certified Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Draft
Environmental Impact Report (November 3, 2009) and incorporates by reference the General Plan EIR’s
traffic analysis for use as the cumulative analysis for the Target Project, as provided for under Sections
15130(d) and 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s General Plan EIR State Clearinghouse Number
is 2008092114, and the document is available at the Santa Rosa City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, in
Santa Rosa for public review.
The following roadway improvements are listed in the City of Santa Rosa’s General Plan and the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). They are assumed to be complete in the evaluation of this Future
Cumulative Conditions analysis.

College Avenue Widening – Cleveland Avenue to Morgan Street (Project #1153, funded for year
2013) – Widen College Avenue to provide three westbound through lanes plus bicycle lanes in
both directions

Install single lane roundabout at Range Avenue/Jennings Avenue

Guerneville Road-Steele Lane Corridor Improvements:
o
Extend the right turn lane on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to a length of 250 feet
o
At the intersection of Steele Lane/Cleveland Avenue, reallocate the lanes on the northbound
approach to Steele Lane to include separate left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes; on the
southbound approach add a 100-foot long right turn lane and reallocate the remaining lanes
to provide one through and two left-turn lanes; modify the intersection phasing to provide
right-turn overlaps and protected left-turn phasing on both Cleveland Avenue approaches
The trip generation estimate used to evaluate Existing plus Project conditions above included a deduction
for only that portion of the space to be demolished that was occupied and generating trips at the time
when traffic counts were taken (i.e., October, 2011). In evaluating Future Cumulative Conditions, the
traffic volumes generated by the Project were considered with the full build-out of Coddingtown Mall, as
City of Santa Rosa
73
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
contemplated in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR analysis included trips associated with full
occupation of the existing space of Coddingtown Mall. With the existing mall space to be eliminated by
the Project taken into account, the Project would result in a net decrease in trips during both the weekday
PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour, as compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan
EIR. These results are shown in Tables XVI-5 and XVI-6.
Table XVI-5. Reduction in Trips due to Project, as Compared to General Plan Buildout
Weekday Trip Generation Summary (Future Cumulative Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Weekday
Rate
Trips
Target Store (1)
PM Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
In
Out
318
156
162
618
303
315
-1,326
-130
-64
-66
4,986
488
239
249
-1,327
-171
-84
-87
3,659
All Demolished Space (2)
Shopping Center
201.631 ksf(3)
Pass-by
31.30
-21%
Subtotal
Net New Trips
6,312
3.07
Note: (1) See Table XVI-2
(2) Gottschalk’s building (154,877 sq. ft.), plus small shop space (46,754 sq. ft.).
Table XVI-6. Reduction in Trips due to Project, as Compared to General Plan Buildout
Saturday Trip Generation Summary (Future Cumulative Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Saturday
Rate
Trips
Target Store(1)
Mid-day Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
In
Out
388
194
194
797
414
383
1,725
-167
-87
-80
6,491
630
327
303
-2,078
-242
-133
-109
4,413
All Demolished Space(2)
Shopping Center
Pass-by
201.631 ksf(3)
40.75
-21%
Subtotal
Net New Trips
8,216
3.95
Note: (1) See Table XVI-3
(2) Gottschalk’s building (154,877 sq. ft.), plus small shop space (46,754 sq. ft.).
City of Santa Rosa
74
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
The General Plan EIR analysis concluded that three arterials in the area of Coddingtown Mall – and
included in this analysis – would not meet the City’s LOS standards at General Plan build-out in 2035.
These roadways are:

College/West College Avenue (AM = LOS F eastbound; PM = LOS D/E westbound)

Guerneville Road (AM = LOS E eastbound)

Steele Lane (AM = LOS D/E eastbound)
The General Plan EIR concluded that the substandard conditions at these intersections would constitute a
significant impact. The analysis presented feasible mitigation measures which, along with policy
provisions outlined in the General Plan, could be applied to these intersections to ameliorate the impacts.
However, due to a lack of an identified funding mechanism(s), the EIR concluded that these impacts
would be significant and unavoidable and the City included them in its Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the General Plan EIR.
However, the Project would actually yield a net reduction in trips generated at Coddingtown Mall under
the Future Cumulative Condition, compared to that of the General Plan buildout scenario (i.e., reoccupation of the Gottschalks building) due to the reduction in overall square footage. Therefore, the
Project would have a beneficial contribution to future operation of the transportation network in the Project
study area, as compared to that reported in the General Plan EIR; however, the 2035 Future Conditions
may still exceed LOS standards as identified in the General Plan EIR. The Project’s contribution to this
significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable, because the contribution would, in
fact, be a net reduction compared to Future Cumulative Conditions.
As noted above, the City of Santa Rosa is also in the process of preparing the [Draft] North Santa Rosa
Station Area Specific Plan, which, if adopted, would guide future development of nearly 1,000 acres
surrounding the proposed Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) passenger rail station to be located
on Guerneville Road. Coddingtown Mall – and the Project site – is encompassed within this proposed
specific plan area. This Specific Plan addresses: potential land uses; station access and circulation and
infrastructure; land use regulations; infrastructure development and financing implementation strategies;
and design guidelines to encourage transit-oriented development within the Specific Plan area. As with
this Project’s analysis of Future Cumulative Conditions, the Specific Plan’s Draft EIR traffic analysis of
future conditions was based on the findings of the City’s General Plan EIR. The Traffic Impact Study
included with the Draft EIR for the Specific Plan includes full occupation of the former Gottschalk’s
building. The results of the Study show that, with proposed circulation improvements, impacts on traffic
congestion on City streets would be less than significant (see Appendix E Traffic Impact Study). Because
the Target Store would be smaller than the former Gottschalk’s building, and because cumulative impacts
with the Specific Plan would be less than significant, the contribution of the Target Store would not be
cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant).
XVI. b)
Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program – Less than Significant
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is designated as the Congestion Management
Agency for Sonoma County. The four stated goals of the 2009 Transportation Plan are to maintain the
system, relieve congestion, reduce emissions, and plan for safety and health. Based on the analyses
provided above and in Section III, Air Quality, the Project would comply with these goals. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
City of Santa Rosa
75
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
XVI. c)
Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns – No Impact
The Project has no components that would result in a change in air traffic patterns. No impact would
occur.
XVI. d)
Substantially Increase Hazards due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Use – Less
than Significant
Access to the Project site would be via existing driveways on Range Avenue, Guerneville Road,
Cleveland Avenue, and Edwards Avenue. The Project would be located in the middle of the Coddingtown
Mall site and would not physically affect any existing driveways, nor would it involve alteration of any of
the approaching roadways. Since no changes to approach and access are anticipated, the Project would
have no impact on the geometry or adequacy of existing site accesses and surrounding roadway network.
Further, since the Project results in a lower trip generating potential than would be expected with reoccupation of the existing shopping center space, operation of the existing driveways would be positively
affected by the reduced traffic demand and opportunity for vehicular conflict.
The proposed Project would be located where a large, anchor tenant building currently exists. Because of
its smaller footprint, the Project would result in a change to the parking pattern just south of the building.
The existing east-west parking aisles will be replaced with north-south aisles, which would match the
pattern of the parking fields surrounding this area. This change would improve circulation through the
parking lot as all of the parking aisles in the area south of the shopping center would be in the same
direction. No other changes to the site’s existing circulation patterns are expected as a result of the
Project.
The collision histories from 2008-10 for the study intersections were reviewed to determine any trends or
patterns that may indicate a safety issue. A detailed discussion of the collision history analysis is
presented in the Project’s Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E) and is summarized here. With the exception
of Guerneville Road at Range Avenue and Steele Lane at U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) North, all of the
study intersections were determined to have experienced collisions at a lower rate than the Statewide
average for similar facilities. With five different primary collision factors among the 19 collisions and
seven different approach direction combinations at the Guerneville Road/Range Avenue intersection, no
particular pattern is apparent. It is noted that a fatal pedestrian crash and a bicycle-involved crash
occurred at this intersection in 2009. The City completed a project during the summer of 2011 that
reduced the length of the crossing on the east leg; this Project would be expected to have a positive
impact on pedestrian safety. With regard to the Steele Lane/US 101 North ramp, the collision data did not
differentiate between the northbound and southbound ramps. Therefore, the elevated number of
collisions on the northbound ramp was attributed to the assignment of data based on direction of
movement and type of crash. Based on that, the Steele Lane/US 101 North ramp exceeded the
Statewide average. The recently-completed US 101 Widening project added capacity which is expected
to help reduce congestion-related crashes that occur at this location.
The study intersections of Guerneville Road/Range Avenue and Steele Lane/US 101 North Ramps
experienced collisions at a rate higher than the statewide average for intersections with similar
configurations and controls. The intersection of Guerneville Road/Range Avenue has recently been
upgraded to reduce pedestrian crossing time, which improves conditions at this location. The recent US
101 Widening project added capacity that can be expected to reduce the congestion-related types of
crashes that occur at this location.
City of Santa Rosa
76
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
The Project would result in no changes to site access and the surrounding roadway network. In addition,
the Project would improve site circulation by re-orienting the parking field south of the Project building to
match the fields surrounding it. Therefore, it would have a less-than-significant impact.
XVI. e)
Result in Inadequate Emergency Access – Less than Significant
The Traffic Impact Study included in Appendix E indicates that the Project would result in minimal
increases in average delay at intersections surrounding the site, so emergency response times would
generally be increased by only a few seconds. Under long-range conditions, however, the Project would
actually reduce the volume of traffic that would be generated by the site, providing a beneficial effect on
emergency response times. There are no other changes contemplated as part of the Project that would
affect emergency access. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency
access.
XVI. f)
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bicycle,
or Pedestrian Facilities, or Otherwise Decrease the Performance or Safety of Such
Facilities – Less than Significant
Following is a summary of the pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities in the vicinity of, and which
could be affected by, the Project. These facilities, and the Project’s potential impacts to these facilities,
are discussed in detail in the Project’s Traffic Impact Study found in Appendix E.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Existing sidewalks, curb ramps, and marked crosswalks are provided at intersections surrounding the
Project site. Sidewalks also exist along the perimeter of existing buildings at the Coddingtown Mall site
and would be extended to provide full connectivity of pedestrian facilities serving the Project and the
existing shopping center.
A variety of existing bikeways are provided in the vicinity of the Project, facilitating both north-south and
east-west access. Further, Santa Rosa’s 2011/12 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, and Citywide Creek Master Plan include the following projects and/or programs
affecting pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the study area:

SMART Path Phase 3 Jennings Avenue to Guerneville Road (currently unfunded, included in the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) – Constructs a portion of the SMART multi-user path along
the rail corridor

Jennings Avenue Rail Crossing (funding approved for environmental and pre-design) –
Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the SMART rail tracks

Highway 101 Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing (funding approved for Caltrans Project Initiation
Document only) - Priority #1 in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; pedestrian and bicycle
overpass linking the Santa Rosa Junior College area with the Coddingtown Mall area Improve
Transit and Shuttle Service on the east side of Range Avenue at Coddingtown Mall to include offstreet stops and a bus turnaround area
The Target Store would not conflict with any of plans or programs for pedestrians or bicycles. Existing
and planned pedestrian facilities and bikeways in the vicinity of the proposed Project would provide a
variety of access options for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to and from the Project site. The
presence of the Project would not deteriorate, or detract from, these facilities. Therefore, the Project
would have a less-than-significant impact.
City of Santa Rosa
77
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Transit Facilities
The Project is located within a short walking distance of the transit hub at Coddingtown Mall, which is
along Range Avenue near the J. C. Penney’s store. The hub is served by CityBus Routes 7, 10, 11 and
15, so the site is accessible via transit. It is anticipated that future transit demand generated by the
Project could be accommodated by the existing transit routes, as well as the SMART passenger rail
service planned for 2016. The North Santa Rosa Station would be located about 0.5 mile to the west of
the Project site on Guerneville Road and could serve both employees and customers.
The Target Store would not conflict with any of plans or programs for pedestrians or bicycles. Existing and
planned future transit services are expected to adequately serve the Project site.
City of Santa Rosa
78
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

c.
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
Project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

f.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?


Discussion:
XVII. a, b, d, e)
Exceed Applicable Wastewater Treatment Requirements and Capacity, or
Require Construction or Expansion of New Water or Wastewater Treatment
Facilities – No Impact
The Project is located within the Santa Rosa Urban Service Area. Wastewater from the Project would be
conveyed to the City’s Laguna Subregional Water Reuse Facility (Laguna Plant) for treatment. The
Laguna Plant is a tertiary-level treatment plant that meets all existing Title 22 treatment requirements.
The Laguna Plant is currently permitted to treat 21.3 million gallons per day (mgd) average dry weather
flow (ADWF); it treated approximately 15 mgd ADWF in 2010. Based on this, the Laguna Plant has
adequate capacity to serve Project flows in addition to its existing commitments. The Project would not
cause the Laguna Plant to exceed wastewater treatment requirements and would not require or result in
the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact would
occur to wastewater treatment facilities.
The Project would connect to an existing commercial water account with the City of Santa Rosa. The
estimated potable water demand (excluding irrigation) for the proposed Target store is 1.1 million gallons
City of Santa Rosa
79
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
per year10. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) evaluates historical and projected
water use and compares water supply to water demands projected through 2035 during normal,
single‐dry, and multiple‐dry years (Santa Rosa 2011). As documented in the UWMP, Santa Rosa has
sufficient water supplies to meet existing and projected demands through build-out of its General Plan,
including under multiple dry-year scenarios. The Project would result in a net reduction in retail space
compared to the area currently served under the existing commercial account. The water would be
provided through existing entitlements and facilities and require no new or expanded water facilities. No
impact would occur to potable water supply facilities.
XVII. c)
Require Construction or Expansion of New Storm Water Drainage Facilities – No
Impact
The Project would be designed in accordance with the City’s SUSMP Guidelines, which aim to address
the impact of development on storm water runoff volume using low impact development (LID) measures
integrated into the overall site design. On-site LID measures proposed for the Project include vegetated
swales, bioretention basins, flowthrough planters, and storm drain inlet filters. The physical disturbance
of these facilities during construction has been addressed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality.
The Project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing off-site facilities. No impact would occur.
XVII. f, g)
Have Sufficient Landfill Capacity and Comply with Statutes Related to Solid Waste –
Less than Significant
The City of Santa Rosa contracts with the North Bay Corporation to provide solid waste collection and
recycling for commercial uses in Santa Rosa. The North Bay Corporation collects and transports
commercial and residential solid waste to the Central Disposal Site Transfer Station at 500 Meacham
Road north of Petaluma. Once at the transfer station, the solid waste is sorted and hauled to the
following landfills: the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County (anticipated to be in operation until
approximately 2030), the Redwood Sanitary Landfill in Marin County (anticipated to be in operation until
approximately 2039), the Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County (anticipated to be in operation
until approximately 2030) (Santa Rosa 2009b).
During construction, there would be a temporary increase in solid waste disposal needs associated with
construction wastes. Construction wastes for the Project would include solid waste from building
demolition, as well as excess pavement, concrete, and soil associated with excavation and site grading.
Both construction waste and operational solid waste could be accommodated by landfills located in the
region. The impact from construction waste and commercial solid waste would be less than significant.
10
An irrigation demand has not been estimated, but includes efficient irrigation equipment and methods to comply with the Santa
Rosa Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
City of Santa Rosa
80
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
4. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c.
Does the Project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?


Discussion:
XVII. a, c) Less than Significant with Mitigation
With implementation of the mitigation measures presented herein, the Project does not have the potential
to degrade the quality of the environment, including fish or wildlife species or their habitat, plant or animal
communities, important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, or adverse
effects on human beings.
XVII. b) Less than Significant
Cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section
15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking
place over a period of time. This IS/Proposed MND utilizes the “plan” approach, per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130(d), to determine if the Project makes a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative
impact. Cumulative impacts have been identified using the summary of projections contained in the
Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Draft and Final EIR (Santa Rosa 2009b and 2009c).
The General Plan 2035 Final EIR identified significant cumulative impacts related to transportation, air
quality/climate change, and biological resources. Each of these cumulative impacts is summarized in
more detail below.
City of Santa Rosa
81
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Air Quality and Climate Change Impacts
Significant unavoidable air quality and climate change impacts were identified in the General Plan Final
EIR due to increased population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) occurring at rates greater than
assumed in regional air quality planning. The General Plan Final EIR identifies a significant unavoidable
impact related to conflicts with implementation of the Bay Area Ozone Strategy, as well as with
implementation of State or local goals for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or generating GHG
emissions that would exceed any applicable threshold of significance. As noted in this Initial Study’s air
quality analysis (Section 3.III), the Project meets both the operational and construction screening criteria
established by the BAAQMD and, therefore, would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to
air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions.
The General Plan Final EIR also identified a significant cumulative impact related to air toxics and
objectionable odors. The cumulative impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level through
mitigation requiring new sensitive uses located near high volume traffic routes to utilize air conditioning
filtration systems. Such sensitive uses would include residences, schools, hospitals, and convalescent
homes. The proposed Project does not meet this definition; therefore, it would not contribute to impacts
identified in the General Plan Final EIR. The Project does not include any new sensitive uses or
substantial increases in long-term traffic and, therefore, would not contribute to this cumulative impact.
Biological Resources Impacts
A significant biological resources impact was identified in the General Plan Final EIR related to conflicts
with local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans for California tiger salamander. The Project site is
not located in the area covered by the habitat plans adopted for the California tiger salamander.
Therefore, the Project would not contribute to this cumulative impact.
Transportation Impacts
Significant unavoidable transportation impacts were identified in the General Plan Final EIR related to
increased traffic volumes, delays, and decreases in levels-of-service (LOS) along U.S. Highway 101 and
other city intersections. Such impacts which would be located in this Project area are LOSs on
Guerneville Road, Steele Lane, and College/West College Avenue.
The Traffic Impact Study conducted for this Project found that it would actually yield a net reduction in
trips generated at Coddingtown Mall under the Future Cumulative Condition, compared to that of the
General Plan buildout scenario (i.e., re-occupation of the Gottschalks building) due to the reduction in
overall square footage. Therefore, the Project would have a beneficial contribution to future operation of
the transportation network in the Project study area, as compared to that reported in the General Plan
EIR; however, the 2035 Future Conditions may still exceed LOS standards as identified in the General
Plan EIR. The Project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively
considerable, because the contribution would, in fact, be a net reduction compared to Future Cumulative
Conditions. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to this cumulative impact.
City of Santa Rosa
82
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
5. Preparers
The following GHD team members prepared this Initial Study/Proposed MND.
Pat Collins
Project Director
David D. Davis, AICP
Job Manager
Brian Bacciarini
Senior Environmental Scientist
Kristine Gaspar
Senior Environmental Planner
Chelsea Phlegar
Planner
Renee Remillard
Graphic Artist
Elissa Overton
Project Administrator
Illingworth & Rodkin – Risk Hazard Analysis and Noise
James Reyff
Michael Thill
Interactive Resources, Inc. – Historic Resource Evaluation
Kimberly Butt, AIA
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. – Traffic
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE
William Kanemoto & Associates – Visual Simulation
William Kanemoto
City of Santa Rosa
83
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
6. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011. California Environmental Quality Act, Air
Quality Guidelines. May 1.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economy at a Glance, Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA. Accessed February 6,
2012: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_santarosa_msa.htm
California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Sonoma County.
Accessed January 23, 2012: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
California Department of Conservation. 2010. Division of Land Resource Protection, Sonoma County
Important Farmland 2008. September.
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), Coastal Region. 2009. Tsunami Inundation
Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region.
Accessed online at
http://quake.abag.ca.gov/tsunamis/
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2008. Santa Rosa, Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Area. November 10.
City of Santa Rosa. 2011. City of Santa Rosa 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
City of Santa Rosa. 2009a. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. November 3.
City of Santa Rosa. 2009b. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Draft EIR. March.
City of Santa Rosa. 2009c. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Final EIR. June.
Environmental Geology Services (EGS). 2011. March 25, 2011 Groundwater Sampling – Boomer’s
Fabrication Center. April 22.
EPA. Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report).
EPA.
Cortese
List
Data
Resources.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm
Accessed
January
23,
2012:
Finger, Kenneth L. 2012. Paleontological Records Search for Coddingtown Target Store Project. March
5.
Sonoma County, Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD). 2011. Williamson Act, 2011
Calendar Year. June 10.
USGS. 1998. Open-File Report 97-745C. San Francisco Bay Region Landslide Folio Part C. Summary
Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. C.M. Wentworth et.
al., Revision 1 February 17
USGS. Last updated: December 2, 2009. 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities. Available online at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/ Viewed: April 16, 2012.
USGS. 2006. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Based on work by William Lettis & Associates, Inc., USGS
Open-File Report 00-444, Knudsen & others, 2000 and USGS Open-File Report 2006-1037, Witter &
others.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. Web Soil Survey for Sonoma County, California. Accessed on
January
20,
2012
online
at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
City of Santa Rosa
Coddingtown Target IS/Proposed MND
93
GHD Inc.
12506-11-001
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Santa Rosa – Coddingtown Target Store
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
Mitigation Measure AES-1 – Comply with City of Santa Rosa Outdoor Lighting
Standards
City of Santa
Rosa
During
construction
Ongoing
during
construction
Comply with City
standards
City of Santa
Rosa
During
construction
Ongoing
during
construction
Implement Basic
Construction
Measures
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Santa Rosa Outdoor Lighting
These
standards contained in Zoning Code Section 20-30.080.
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
An outdoor light fixture shall be limited to a maximum height of 14 feet or
the height of the nearest building, whichever is less.
•
New lighting fixtures shall be shielded or recessed to reduce light bleed
to adjoining properties, ensuring that the light source is not visible from
off the site.
•
Glare and reflections shall be confined within the boundaries of the
Project site to the maximum extent feasible.
•
Each light fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining
properties and public rights-of-way, so that no on-site light fixture directly
illuminates an area off the site.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 – Basic Construction Measures
The Applicant and its Contractor(s) shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s Basic Construction Measures, which consist of the
following:
•
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
Action Items
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
GHD Inc.
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-1
Mitigation Measure
•
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
•
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
•
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
•
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible.
•
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not
in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by
the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
•
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
•
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
GHD Inc.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
Action Items
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-2
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
Nesting Birds
Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Surveys for
If feasible, the Applicant shall remove trees only between the months of
September and January in order to avoid the potential of encountering
nesting birds. If tree removal or construction is scheduled to start between
February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction
nesting surveys within 14 days of construction for nesting passerines (small
songbirds) and raptors. Trees within a 200-foot radius shall be included in
the surveys. If active nests are located in the work area, the qualified
biologist shall establish an appropriately-sized buffer around the nest prior to
tree removal and/or ground-breaking activities. No construction activity shall
occur within the buffer area. To prevent encroachment, the established
buffer(s) shall remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has
been abandoned as confirmed by the qualified biologist.
GHD Inc.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
City of Santa
Rosa
Prior to
construction
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
Ongoing
during
construction
Action Items
Conduct surveys if
needed;
Implement
mitigation
measures, as
needed
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-3
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure BIO-2:
Roosting Bats
Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Surveys for
The Applicant shall ensure that a qualified bat biologist conduct a specialstatus bat assessment for the trees and building eaves proposed for removal
as a result of the Project. The assessment shall occur at least 30 days and
no more than 90 days prior to construction activities. If suitable bat habitat is
found, a report shall be prepared to detail appropriate mitigation measures
for each tree or building eave containing suitable potential or discovered
roost habitat (e.g. cavities, crevices, bark or wood fissures, exfoliating bark).
Tree and building eave removal shall be conducted in accordance with the
report and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist only during the
following seasonal periods of bat activity:
•
August 31 through October 15, when young would be self-sufficiently
volant (i.e., able to fly) and prior to hibernation; or
•
March 1 to April 15, avoiding hibernating bats and prior to formation of
maternity colonies.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
City of Santa
Rosa
Prior to
construction
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
Ongoing
during
construction
Action Items
Conduct surveys,
if needed;
Implement
mitigation
measures as
needed
Trees shall be removed in a two-phased removal system conducted over two
consecutive days. The first day (in the afternoon), selected limbs and
branches not containing cavities are to be removed using only chainsaws
(no excavators, etc.). Limbs with cavities, crevices or deep bark fissures
shall be avoided, and only branches or limbs without those features shall be
removed. On the second day, the remainder of the tree may be removed,
either using chainsaws or other equipment.
GHD Inc.
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-4
Mitigation Measure
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall comply
with the tree replanting requirements indicated in Santa Rosa Municipal
Code Chapter 17-24. Replacement trees shall be planted on the Project
site; however, if the Project site is inadequate in size to accommodate the
replacement trees, the trees shall be planted on public property with the
approval of the Director of the City’s Recreation and Parks Department. A
fee of $100 per replacement tree may be paid in-lieu of planting replacement
trees onsite to the City of Santa Rosa Department of Recreation and Parks.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Identify and Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Unknown
Cultural Resources
If archaeological materials are encountered during construction activities, the
piece of equipment that encounters the materials shall be stopped and the
find inspected by a qualified archaeologist. Project personnel shall not
collect cultural materials. If the archaeologist determines that the find
qualifies as a unique archaeological resource or a historical resource for
purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(3)), all work must
be stopped in the immediate vicinity to allow the archaeologist to evaluate
any materials and recommend appropriate treatment. Such treatment and
resolution could include modifying the Project to allow the materials to be left
in place, or undertaking data recovery of the materials in accordance with
standard archaeological methods. The preferred treatment of the resource
is protection and preservation.
GHD Inc.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
City of Santa
Rosa
During
construction
Ongoing
during
construction
Implement
mitigation
measures, as
needed
City of Santa
Rosa
During
construction
Ongoing
during
construction
Retain qualified
archaeologist for
construction
activities, as
needed;
Implement
avoidance and
minimization
procedures, as
needed
Action Items
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-5
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure CR-2 – Procedures for Encountering Human Remains
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that it is a
misdemeanor to knowingly disturb a human grave. If human graves are
encountered, the Applicant and its Contractor shall ensure that work shall
halt in the vicinity and the County Coroner shall be notified. At the same
time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If
human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification,
pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.
Mitigation Measure CR-3:
Resources
Evaluation and Treatment of Paleontological
If paleontological resources (e.g., vertebrate bones, teeth, or abundant and
well-preserved invertebrates or plants) are encountered during construction,
the Applicant shall ensure work in the immediate vicinity shall be diverted
away from the find until a professional palaeontologist assesses and
salvages the find, if necessary.
GHD Inc.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
City of Santa
Rosa
During
construction
Ongoing
during
construction
Implement
procedures and
initiate notification,
as necessary
City of Santa
Rosa
During
construction
Ongoing
during
construction
Implement
procedures, as
needed
Action Items
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-6
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 – Geotechnical Investigation
A California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct a design-level
geotechnical study for the Project. The geotechnical study shall evaluate
seismic hazards and provide recommendations to mitigate the effect of
strong ground shaking; any unstable, liquefiable, or expansive soils; or
settlement in adherence with current California Building Code (CBC)
standards for earthquake resistant construction. The seismic criteria shall
take into account the active faults in the Santa Rosa area and beyond, and
ground motions and shaking related to the faults shall be accounted. The
geotechnical study shall include evaluation of unstable land in the Project
area, including areas susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or
settlement, and areas containing expansive soils. The study shall provide
measures to repair, stabilize, or avoid such soils, and include grading,
drainage, paving, and foundation design recommendations.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial
Action
City of Santa
Rosa
Prior to
construction
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
Ongoing
during
construction
Action Items
Incorporate
geotechnical
recommendations
into plans and
specifications;
Retain qualified
geotechnical
engineer for final
plan review and
construction
observation
The Project shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the
specific recommendations contained in the design-level geotechnical study,
including recommendations for grading, ground improvement, and
foundation support. The recommendations made in the geotechnical study
shall be incorporated into the final plans and specifications and implemented
during construction. Professional inspection of foundation and excavation,
earthwork and other geotechnical aspects of site development shall be
performed during construction in accordance with the current version of the
CBC.
GHD Inc.
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-7
Mitigation Measure
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 – Hazardous Building Materials Survey and
Abatement
City of Santa
Rosa
Prior to building demolition, the Applicant shall ensure that a registered
environmental assessor or a registered engineer perform a hazardous
building materials survey. The survey shall be designed to identify any
asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, electrical equipment
containing PCBs, fluorescent lights containing mercury, or fluorescent light
ballasts containing PCBs or DEHP. If any friable asbestos-containing
materials, lead-containing materials, or other hazardous components of
building materials are identified, adequate abatement practices, such as
containment and/or removal, in accordance with applicable regulations for
the handling and removal of these materials, shall be implemented prior to
demolition or renovation. Any PCB-containing equipment or fluorescent
lights containing mercury vapors shall also be removed and disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations.
Timing of
Initial
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and
Duration
Prior to
building
demolition
Ongoing
during
construction
Action Items
Hazardous
building materials
survey by
registered
environmental
assessor or
engineer;
Adequate
abatement,
removal, and
disposal of
materials.
If asbestos is detected, the demolition and removal of asbestos-containing
building materials shall be subject to applicable California Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and BAAQMD regulations
(Regulation 11, Rule 2). A written plan or notification of intent to demolish
buildings shall be provided to the BAAQMD at least ten working days prior to
commencement of demolition, even if no ACMs are present. If lead-based
paint is identified, then federal and State construction worker health and
safety regulations shall be followed during demolition activities, including
Title 17 of the CCR, Sections 35001 through 3600. If loose or peeling leadbased paint is identified, it shall be removed by a qualified lead abatement
contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardous waste
regulations.
GHD Inc.
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-8
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Prior to construction, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under State Water
Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. The Applicant shall submit
permit registration documents (notice of intent, risk assessment, site maps,
SWPPP, annual fee, and certifications) to the State Water Resources Control
Board. The SWPPP shall address pollutant sources, best management
practices, and other requirements specified in Order 2009-0009-DWQ. The
BMPs shall include any measures included in the erosion and sediment control
plans developed for the Project to minimize disturbance after grading or
construction. The SWPPP shall also include dust control practices to prevent
wind erosion, sediment tracking and dust generation by construction
equipment. The Applicant shall ensure that a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
oversees implementation of the SWPPP, including visual inspections,
sampling and analysis, and ensuring overall compliance.
GHD Inc.
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial Action
City of Santa
Rosa
Prior to
construction
Monitoring
Frequency
and Duration
Action Items
Ongoing
during
construction
Complete and
implement
SWPPP
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-9
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure HYD-2 – Construction Dewatering
If construction dewatering is required, the Applicant shall evaluate reasonable
options for dewatering management. The following management options
shall be considered:
•
Reuse the water on-site for dust control, compaction, or irrigation.
•
Retain the water on-site in a grassy or porous area to allow
infiltration/evaporation.
•
Discharge (by permit) to a sanitary sewer or storm drain (this option may
require a temporary method to filter sediment-laden water prior to
discharge).
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
City of Santa
Rosa
Timing of
Initial Action
Prior to
construction
Monitoring
Frequency
and Duration
Ongoing
during
construction
Action Items
Develop
appropriate
plans, if needed;
Obtain permits,
as needed
If discharging to the sanitary sewer, the Applicant shall obtain a one-time
discharge permit from the City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department. Measures
may include characterizing the discharge and ensuring filtering methods and
monitoring to verify that the discharge is compliant with the City’s local
wastewater discharge requirements.
If discharging to a storm drain (i.e., surface waters), the Project shall comply
with Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R1-2009-0045, Waste
Discharge Requirements for Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters in the
North Coast Region. This permit would only be required if groundwater is
discharged to the storm drain system. In such case, the Applicant shall
submit permit registration documents and develop a Best Management
Practices/Pollution Prevention plan to characterize the discharge and to
identify specific BMPs to control the discharge, such as sediment controls to
ensure that excessive sediment is not discharged, and flow controls to
prevent erosion and flooding downstream of the discharge.
GHD Inc.
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-10
Mitigation Measure
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Reduce Construction-Related Noise
City of Santa
Rosa
Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code. Construction noise
control measures may include, but would not be limited to the following:
•
All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped
with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
•
The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air
compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
exists.
•
Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.
•
At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noisegenerating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from
sensitive receptors.
•
All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that the emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
•
Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will
create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise
•
sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
•
Owners and occupants of residential and non-residential properties
located within 300 feet of the construction site shall be notified of the
construction schedule in writing.
GHD Inc.
Timing of
Initial Action
Prior to
construction
Monitoring
Frequency
and Duration
Ongoing
during
construction
Action Items
Prepare notice;
Monitor
equipment
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-11
Mitigation Measure
•
Verify
Compliance/
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing of
Initial Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and Duration
Action Items
The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance
coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct
the problem (e.g., to ensure that the measures above are implemented).
A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be
conspicuously posted at the construction site.
GHD Inc.
May 2012
12506-11-001
A-12
Appendix B
Preliminary Health Risk Analysis
505 Petaluma Blvd. South
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-766-7700
April 23, 2012
Kristine Gaspar
Senior Environmental Planner
GHD
VIA email:
[email protected]
SUBJECT:
Target Store at Coddingtown Mall, Santa Rosa – Health Risk Analysis of
Construction Period Emissions
Dear Kristine:
This analysis addressed impacts from construction of the proposed project Target Store at
Coddingtown Mall in Santa Rosa, California. The closest residences to the project site are
located south of the project construction site, with additional residences farther south and to the
east and west of the site (see Figure 1). A health risk assessment of the project construction
activities was conducted that evaluated construction emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM) and associated health risks to nearby residential areas. A dispersion model was used to
predict the off-site concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer
risks could be predicted.
Construction period emissions were computed using the URBEMIS2007 model along with
projected construction activity. Construction of the project is expected to occur over a fifteen
month period during 2012 and 2013. Construction activities were assumed to occur 5 days per
week between 8 am - 5 pm. The URBEMIS2007 model provided annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off road construction equipment used for
construction of the project of 0.035 and 0.030 tons per year for 2012 and 2013 construction
years, respectively. On-road PM2.5 exhaust emissions were calculated by URBEMIS2007 as
0.0015 tons per year for 2012 and 2013. These on-road emissions are a result of on-road haul
truck travel and vendor deliveries during construction. Since only the emissions that would
occur at or near the project site would affect nearby local residences, it was assumed that 20
percent of the total on-road truck emissions would be associated with on-site activities or nearsite travel.
The U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM at existing
residences near the project site. The ISCST3 dispersion model is a BAAQMD recommended
model for use in refined modeling analysis of CEQA projects 1. The ISCST3 modeling of
construction activities used a single area source with a release height of 6 meters to represent the
1
BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 2.0, May
2011.
Kristine Gaspar
April 23, 2012 - Page 2
project construction area. Emissions were modeled as occurring between 8 am - 5 pm.
Emissions for each of the construction years were modeled. The model used a 5-year data set
(2001 – 2005) of hourly meteorological data from the Santa Rosa Airport, located about 3.2 miles
southwest of the project site. Annual concentrations from construction activities were predicted
for 2012 and 2013, with the concentrations for each construction year based on the 5-year
average concentrations from modeling 5 years of meteorological data.
Increased cancer risks were calculated using the maximum modeled annual concentration and
BAAQMD recommended risk assessment methods for both a child exposure (3rd trimester
through 2 years of age) and for an adult exposure. Since the modeling was conducted assuming
emissions occurred 365 days per year, the default OEHHA2 exposure period of 350 days per year
was used.
Results of this assessment indicate a incremental child cancer risk of 2.4 excess cancer cases per
million and the adult incremental cancer risk is 0.1 excess cancer cases per million. Under the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, an incremental risk of greater than 10.0 cases per
million from a single source at the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) would be a significant
impact. The project’s cancer risks are well below the BAAQMD’s cancer risk threshold.
Attachment A includes the emission calculations used for the area source modeling and the
cancer risk calculations.
Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. The
chronic inhalation reference exposure level (REL) for DPM is 5 micrograms per cubic meter
(μg/m3). The maximum predicted annual DPM concentration from construction activities is 0.02
μg/m3, which is much lower than the REL. The Hazard Index (HI), which is the ratio of the
annual DPM concentration to the REL, is 0.004. This HI is much lower than the BAAQMD
significance criterion of a HI greater than 1.0.
In addition to evaluating the health risks from DPM, potential impacts from PM2.5 emissions
from the construction were evaluated. To evaluate potential non-cancer health effects due to
PM2.5, the BAAQMD adopted a significance threshold of an annual average PM2.5concentration
greater than 0.3 µg/m3. From the construction modeling for cancer risks, the maximum PM2.5
concentration was 0.02 μg/m3. This concentration is well below the BAAQMD PM2.5 threshold
of greater than 0.3 µg/m3.
Based on the above results, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to
community risk caused by construction activities.
2
OEHHA 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August
2003.
*
Petaluma, CA 94952
*
707-766-7700
*
fax 707-766-7790
Kristine Gaspar
April 23, 2012 - Page 3
Figure 1. Project Construction Site and Sensitive Receptor Locations
*
*
*
This concludes our analysis of health risk effects from emissions of DPM during construction of
the proposed Target Store at Coddingtown Mall in Santa Rosa. Please call us if you have any
questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
James A. Reyff
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Attachment:
DPM Modeling Assumptions
12-016
*
Petaluma, CA 94952
*
707-766-7700
*
fax 707-766-7790
Santa Rosa - Target Store Construction
DPM Construction Emissions
DPM
Emisson
Rate
g/s/m2
Year
(ton/year)
(lb/yr)
Source
(lb/yr)
(lb/hr)
(g/s)
Modeled
Area
(m2)
2012
0.035
69.8
Area 1
Total
69.8
69.8
0.02125
0.02125
2.68E-03
0.00268
29,695
29,695
9.02E-08
9.02E-08
2013
0.030
37.1
Area 1
Total
37.1
37.1
0.01130
0.01130
1.42E-03
0.00142
29,695
29,695
4.79E-08
4.79E-08
Construction
DPM Emissions
Area
DPM Emissions
Notes:
Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over each construction areas
hr/day =
days/yr =
hours/year =
9
365
3285
(8am - 5pm)
Santa Rosa - Target Store Construction
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Offsite Residential Receptor Locations
Cancer Risk (per million) =
CPF x Inhalation Dose x 1.0E6
-1
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10-6 / AT
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged.
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Parameter
Child
Adult
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR =
581
302
A=
1
1
EF =
350
350
AT =
25,550
25,550
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Year
1
Exposure
Exposure
Duration
(years)
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
1
13
1
14
1
15
1
16
1
17
1
18
1
.•
.•
.•
.•
.•
.•
65
1
66
1
67
1
68
1
69
1
70
1
Total Increased Cancer Risk
Child - Exposure Information
Exposure
DPM Conc (ug/m3)
Adjust
Year
Annual
Factor
2012
0.0178
10
2013
.•
.•
.•
0.0094
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.•
.•
.•
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
10
4.75
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1
.•
.•
.•
1
1
1
1
1
1
Child
Cancer
Risk
(per million)
1.55
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.•
.•
.•
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.4
Note: Maximum DPM concentrations occur at the closest residences south of construction area
2
Adult - Exposure Information
Modeled
Exposure
DPM Conc (ug/m3)
Adjust
Year
Annual
Factor
2012
0.0178
1
2013
.•
.•
.•
0.0094
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.•
.•
.•
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.•
.•
.•
1
1
1
1
1
1
Adult
Cancer
Risk
(per million)
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.•
.•
.•
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: Z:\I&R Docs\2012\12-016 Target Coddingtown\AQ Folder\TargetConstruction.urb924
Project Name: Target Construction
Project Location: Sonoma County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust
PM2.5
2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)
0.19
0.04
0.23
2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)
0.19
0.04
0.23
Percent Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)
0.00
0.03
0.03
2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)
0.00
0.03
0.03
Percent Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
PM2.5 Dust
PM2.5 Exhaust
PM2.5
0.19
0.04
0.23
0.0346
Equipment
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.0015
On-Road Trucks & Vendors
Fugitive Dust
0.24
0.00
0.24
Demo Off Road Diesel
0.00
0.01
0.01
Demo On Road Diesel
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.02
0.21
Mass Grading Dust
0.19
0.00
0.19
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
0.00
0.01
0.01
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass Grading Worker Trips
2012
Demolition 07/01/2012-11/01/2012
Mass Grading 10/01/2012-12/01/2012
2012 DPM
0.00
0.00
0.00
Building 12/01/2012-06/01/2013
0.00
0.01
0.01
Building Off Road Diesel
0.00
0.01
0.01
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
2013 DPM
Building 12/01/2012-06/01/2013
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.0298
Equipment
Building Off Road Diesel
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.0015
On-Road Trucks & Vendors
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013
Coating 06/01/2013-07/01/2013
0.00
0.00
0.00
Architectural Coating
0.00
0.00
0.00
Coating Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Demolition 7/1/2012 - 11/1/2012 - Default Fine Site Grading Description
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 5623290
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.49 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.4 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.363 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2012 - 12/1/2012 - Default Paving Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.11
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 2.03
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 lbs per acre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 71.11
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.403 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.4 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.33 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/1/2012 - 6/1/2013 - Default Building Construction Description
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (150 hp) operating at a 0.283 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.198 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.297 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 6/1/2013 - 7/1/2013 - Default Architectural Coating Description
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
4
Appendix C
Historic Resources Evaluation
HISTORIC RESOURCES EVALUATION
Proposed Target Store
at Coddingtown Mall
Santa Rosa, California
March 27, 2012
Prepared for
GHD Inc.
Prepared by
Kimberly Butt, AIA
Interactive Resources, Inc.
117 Park Place
Richmond, CA
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
at Coddingtown Mall
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................1
EVALUATION SUMMARY .................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY HISTORY OF CODDINGTOWN MALL .............................................................................2
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CODDINGTOWN MALL .............................................................................7
EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................9
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................................11
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................15
ENDNOTES......................................................................................................................................16
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................19
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
at Coddingtown Mall
March 27, 2012
INTRODUCTION
At the request of GHD Inc., Interactive Resources has undertaken an historic resource evaluation
of Coddingtown Mall in Santa Rosa, California as the shopping center would be affected by the
proposed Target Store. The former Gottschalks store and several other out-facing
commercial/office spaces on the south side of the shopping center would be demolished if the
Target Store is approved. Because the shopping center was originally developed 50 years ago,
the property has been evaluated for historical significance both for the purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and at the request of the City of Santa Rosa.
METHODOLOGY
Interactive Resources prepared this historic resource evaluation by reviewing existing material
provided by the Coddingtown Mall Property Management Office (including selected as-built
drawings), undertaking archival research, and conducting a site visit to inspect the property and
take photographs. The site visit was conducted on March 1, 2012. Archival research was
undertaken at the Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library, the Santa Rosa Planning
Department, the San Francisco Public Library website and various online resources.
Additionally, a records search was carried out by the Northwest Information Center of the
California Historical Resource Information System. The following report is intended to provide a
historical evaluation of the property through a thorough analysis of the shopping center, its
history and role in the development of Santa Rosa in order to determine if the property appears to
be a historic resource as defined by the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or the City of Santa Rosa.1
EVALUATION SUMMARY
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) require that the resource be at least 50 years old (except under special
circumstances), that it be significant under at least one of four criteria, and that it possess historic
integrity. The four criteria include: association with historic events, association with important
persons, distinctive design or physical characteristics, and the potential to provide important
information about history or prehistory. In determining NRHP and CRHR eligibility, the author
weighed known historical associations, architectural merit, and finally, the current level of
Historic Resource Evaluation  Page 1
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
integrity. Additionally, the City of Santa Rosa allows for the designation of landmarks if they are
determined to have a specific historical, archaeological, cultural or architectural value in the
City.2
After conducting the evaluation of the subject property, it appears that the shopping center, as a
whole, is not eligible for listing on either the national or state registers, or as a local landmark.
Although the property illustrates potentially locally significant associations with the development
of northwest Santa Rosa, with a person significant in the development of Santa Rosa, Hugh
Codding, and as a modest example of the Modern architectural style, the property does not
appear to posses adequate significance for listing nor to maintain sufficient integrity to
demonstrate these potential associations. Separately the revolving Coddingtown sign tower does
appear to have local historical significance and is a listed Santa Rosa Landmark.
SUMMARY HISTORY OF CODDINGTOWN MALL
The history of Coddingtown Mall is most significantly tied to its namesake and developer, Hugh
Codding. A property may be determined historically significant due to its association with the
lives of persons significant in our past (Criteria 2/B). Therefore, the following background
research has been completed on Hugh Codding, a person who appears to be potentially
significant in the development of Santa Rosa. Codding was a central character in the postwar
development of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Local journalist Gaye LeBaron wrote, “future
historians may well consider him [Hugh Codding] a central figure in the second half of the
county’s 20th century,” and that Codding’s developments “changed Santa Rosa more
dramatically and more quickly than any change that had come before, with the possible
exception of the ’06 quake.”3
Hugh Codding returned from the Navy in 1945 with $400 in discharge pay and constructed a
house for speculation sale. He quickly moved on from individual homes to subdivisions to
shopping centers. Town & Country Village was the first shopping center he constructed. With
the profits from its sale, Codding purchased an orchard on Farmers Lane in east Santa Rosa and
began the development of Montgomery Village. In addition to the shopping center, he
constructed 2,600 houses in the area. Codding was proficient in self-promotion and gained
national attention from Time magazine for various exploits such as building a house in less than
four hours and a church in five hours and sixteen minutes. In 1955, through heated negotiations,
Santa Rosa annexed Montgomery Village, and almost doubled the city’s population overnight.4
Codding’s business developments crashed in the mid-1950s, but had recovered by the end of the
decade.5 He soon set his sights on the orchards northwest of Santa Rosa, near the newly
completed U.S. Highway 101. Hugh and his wife, Nell, purchased land from the Indian Creek
Lumber Company at Guerneville Road and Range Avenue, and aspired to create a new
commercial development.6 In 1959, Codding had planned on naming the shopping center
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
“Futureland.”7 As the project progressed, the development group officially incorporated as Santa
Rosa Enterprises. The plans grew in scope and the development’s name was changed to
Coddingtown. Further, the entire area west of the highway, and around the proposed shopping
center, became known as the Coddingtown area. It eventually would include a professional park,
housing subdivisions, an airport, a drive-in theater, and industrial enterprises.8 The various
parcels were slowly annexed by Santa Rosa from Sonoma County over the course of two
decades beginning in the early 1960s.9
The iconic, rotating Coddingtown sign tower is said to have been the first structure installed on
the site between 1960 and 1962. One source states that the sign stood for two years in an
undeveloped walnut orchard, before the new shopping center opened, which would infer that the
tower was constructed in 1960; however a conflicting source would date the tower to 1962.10 The
initial design for the sign included a 150-foot-tall structure resembling the Eiffel Tower, but this
scheme was rejected by the Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments.11 Instead the tower,
which still stands and is a Santa Rosa Landmark, is much simpler with a revolving, neon name
plate with “Codding” on one side and “Town” on the other.
Welton Beckett and Associates, one of the foremost national firms specializing in the regional
shopping center type, was hired to design the Coddingtown Regional Shopping Center.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, the firm also had offices in San Francisco, New York, Houston,
and Chicago.12 Welton Becket was well known not only for his Modern style, but also for his
numerous commercial designs, including Stonestown (1950) in San Francisco, which may have
been of particular significance to Codding. Drawings show that the firm continued to work on
the completion of the center throughout the 1960s. Welton Becket died in 1969, yet the firm
continued on through various iterations, and today is now part of AECOM.13 A property may
also be found historically significant for its architectural design or as the work of a master
(Criteria C/3). In the significance section below, the design of the shopping center is assessed for
architectural significance within both its regional context and the within the context of the work
of Welton Becket.
Construction began on the shopping center in 1962. Thrifty Drug Company and Lucky Stores
were the first companies to agree to locate in the new development, which would be touted as the
largest regional shopping center between San Francisco and Portland.14 The first three buildings
constructed (Buildings A, B, and C) were located in what would be the northwest section of the
completed center. The Lucky Store – now a Whole Foods Market specialty store – and Thrifty
Drug Company flanked ten other stores in between. Additionally, a Standard Oil station stood at
the corner of Guerneville Road and Range Avenue; this structure no longer exists.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
Figure 1: 1962 rendering of the proposed Coddingtown Regional Shopping Center
by Welton Becket and Associates. 1962. Courtesy, the Sonoma County Library.
Figure 2: Aerial taken c.1966 with the four northern buildings in place and three of the southern
buildings constructed. Only J.C. Penney was not yet complete. Courtesy, the Sonoma County
Library (Note building labels added by the author.)
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
Figure 3: View down a pedestrian promenade toward the Emporium
(Building E), looking east, c. 1966. Courtesy, the Sonoma County Library.
Figure 4: Hugh Codding, left, posing with a set of plans in front of the newly
completed J.C. Penney, c. 1967. Courtesy, the Sonoma County Library.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
The following year, the last building at the north side (Building D) was constructed east of the
existing three.15 Building D housed Roos Atkins, Smith’s and Joseph Magnin – now Sweet River
Grill, Bank of the West, Village Sewing, Quizno’s Sub, Baskin Robbins, Pure Beauty, Great
Clips and Fresh China. Codding continued work to expand the open air shopping center, and by
the mid-1960s, both the Emporium and J.C. Penney agreed to come to Coddingtown. The twostory anchor stores were located south of the existing buildings, with J.C. Penney at the west and
the Emporium at the east end. The Emporium – now a Macy’s Department Store – was
constructed first and opened, along with two additional single-story commercial buildings to the
west (Buildings F and G) in 1966. J.C. Penney was completed the following year.
The facilities at Coddingtown remained essentially unchanged until 1979, when the company
decided to enclose the shopping center and construct a building for a third anchor store. Liberty
House opened in 1981 and was later occupied by Gottschalks Department Store. This structure
was located on the south side of the shopping center, centered between the two other anchor
department stores.16 In 2001, portions of Building C were demolished for the construction of an
Old Navy Store. The most recent developments at Coddingtown include the demolition of
Building A, the original Lucky store, and the construction of a new Whole Foods Market in its
place; as well as, the redesign and construction of two entrances and of the northern facade of
Building B.17
In addition to the shopping center itself, numerous parcels along the outer edge of the parking lot
have been developed over the course of the past 50 years. The development includes: a post
office, a branch library, commercial structures, and apartment buildings.
While Coddingtown Mall thrived throughout its first several decades, it has lately seen a
significant decline in its business. In 2009, the Gottschalks Department Store chain went out of
business, leaving the Liberty House building vacant. The building has only been used
sporadically since, primarily as temporary, holiday-centered commercial operations.
Construction Timeline
1960: Santa Rosa Enterprises formed and the new corporation purchased 34 acres of land located
between Santa Rosa Industrial Park and U.S. Highway 101 for $105,000.
1960-1962: The revolving Coddingtown sign was erected.18
November 28, 1962: First businesses at Coddingtown Regional Shopping Center opened in three
buildings: Lucky Market, Thrifty Drug, and ten smaller storefronts.19
1963: The fourth building on the north side (Building D) was completed.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
1965: The freeway interchange was constructed at Steele Lane; The Emporium construction
began.
1966: The Emporium opened and two adjacent buildings were constructed to house 40 retail
businesses.
1967: J.C. Penney began construction.
1968: J.C. Penney opened for business.
1980: The shopping center was enclosed and the third, two-story anchor store building was
constructed.
1993: Revolving sign designated a City of Santa Rosa historic landmark.
2001: Portion of Building C was demolished and replaced with a new Old Navy building.
2010: Building A was demolished and a new Wholes Food Market constructed.
2011: The north and east shopping center entrances were redesigned and constructed.
2012: Renovation of the Building B façade.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CODDINGTOWN MALL
Coddingtown Mall is situated in northwest Santa Rosa, directly west of U.S. Highway 101 along
the south side of Guerneville Road. Standing on approximately 40 acres, the shopping center, Eshaped in plan, is surrounded by a large parking lot. Numerous small buildings line the outer
edges of the parking area, mainly south of the shopping center, and a branch library stands at the
north parking lot entrance at Guerneville Road.
As explained above, the original shopping center was completed in 1967 with eight separate
buildings connected by outdoor pedestrian promenades and plazas. Four single-story buildings
were aligned on an east-west axis along the north side and two two-story anchor buildings, with
two single-story buildings in between, were aligned on the same axis along the south side. In
architectural style, the shopping center was Modern and functionally simple.
The majority of the shopping center is single story, with flat roofs, and features a covered portico
at most of the 1960s buildings. On the exterior, storefronts open directly out to the portico and
the parking lots beyond. The simple stucco-clad elevations include wide, open bays defined by
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
square columns and accented by recessed beams across the top of the openings. A high, stuccoclad parapet with a sheet metal cap completes the typical exterior elevations. The storefronts are
set back under the protection of the portico and are all of varying designs consistent with each
tenant company’s retail identity.
Building D, the original Roos Atkins – now Sweet River Grill, Bank of the West and others-,
follows the same general theme as the other single-story commercial buildings, with recessed
store fronts and wide, open bays with square columns. The elevations are slightly unique in that
the columns extend up to the canted parapet and are recessed within the rock embedded concrete
cladding panels. The central bay on the north side has been updated with an arched glazed
opening, stucco clad exterior and a stepped parapet.
In 1980, the shopping center was enclosed and the last anchor store was constructed south of the
existing buildings. The three anchor stores are all essentially two stories with flat roofs and are
unified only in their use of tan-colored concrete masonry units at the exteriors. The eastern
anchor store originally was designed for the Emporium and remains quite similar to its original
appearance. Modern in style, the rectangular building is clad in tan split-faced concrete masonry
units, and large vertical sections clad in ceramic tiles are employed to accent the entrances. The
most notable exterior design feature is the two-story porch that extends off of the east side and is
visible from U.S. Highway 101. Giant square columns extend up to the roof overhang and
support a porch at the second floor. Period globe pendant lights hang from the porch ceiling,
which features an incised geometric pattern.
J.C. Penney was the second anchor store to be constructed at Coddingtown. Also Modern in
style, the two-story rectangular box features an exposed white-painted, concrete frame with tan
block infill cladding. At the ground floor, various structural bays are left open, revealing a
portico surrounding the building, similar to those of the single-story commercial buildings.
Historic photos show that originally there was no infill at the ground floor bays. Finally, a simple
rectangular eave projects out from the building’s parapet.
The third anchor store – the former Liberty House and Gottschalks structure – is a stylistic
departure from the original shopping center.20 The rectangular two-story building with a flat
roof, features a stucco-clad second story that slightly cantilevers out over the split-face tan blockclad first story. At the building’s three exterior entrances, a large glass box extends out over the
recessed doorways. Also in 1980, the exterior pedestrian promenades throughout the shopping
center were enclosed with rows of clerestory windows, exposed deep wood beams and wood
ceilings.
Old Navy came to the shopping center in 2001. Codding Construction, working with architect
Starrett of Santa Rosa, demolished a portion of Building C and built a new store. In 2010, a
Whole Foods Market went in at the site of the original Lucky grocery store (Building A.)21 The
original building demolished was replaced with a new structure designed by Wix Architecture of
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
Santa Rosa.22 Two new modern entrances, design by ELS Architecture of Berkeley, of metal,
wood panels, frosted glass and slate were constructed in the past year on the north side of Macy’s
(Building E) and between Buildings B and C.23 Additionally, the north façade of Building C
(Old Navy) is currently under renovations. The existing Building C commercial space has been
redesigned by ELS Architecture to accommodate a new BJ’s restaurant.24
EVALUATION CRITERIA
National Register of Historic Places
National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the
property must be “associated with an important historic context.”25 The National Register
identifies four possible context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national,
state, or local level. As listed under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form, these are:
“A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of our history.
“B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
“C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinction.
“D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory
or history.”26
Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must
also retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.”27 While a
property’s significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to
“a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.”28 To determine if a
property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National
Register has identified seven aspects of integrity. These are:
“Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred...
“Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
structure, and style of a property...
“Setting is the physical environment of a historic property...
“Materials is the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property...
“Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history or prehistory...
“Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time...
“Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.”29
Since integrity is based on a property’s significance within a specific historic context, an
evaluation of a property’s integrity can only occur after historic significance has been
established.30
California Register of Historical Resources
California Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register
and National Register: a Comparison, outlines the differences between the federal and state
processes. The context types to be used when establishing the significance of a property for
listing on the California Register are very similar, with emphasis on local and state significance.
They are:
“1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or
the United States; or
“2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history; or
“3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values; or
“4. It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
history of the local area, California, or the nation.”31
A property must also retain sufficient integrity based on the seven aspects previously identified.
A property may not maintain sufficient integrity for listing on the NRHP, but may still be
eligible for listing in the CRHR if it maintain the potential to yield significant scientific or
historical information or specific data.32
City of Santa Rosa
Recognizing the value of Santa Rosa's historic resources, the City Council adopted a
Preservation Ordinance in 1988 and created the City's Cultural Heritage Board. Santa Rosa's ongoing support of preservation planning is also expressed in the City's General Plan which
includes Element 11, Historic Preservation, in the City of Santa Rosa’s 2035 General Plan.
Further, Article III of Chapter 17-22 of the City Code allows for the City Council to designate
landmarks and defines a landmark as “any site… place, building, structure, street, street
furniture, sign, work of art, natural feature or other object having a specific historical,
archaeological, cultural or architectural value in the City.”
Coddingtown Mall, or any portion thereof, is not currently listed on either the National or State
registers. However, the freestanding Coddingtown Revolving Sign Tower was designated as a
local Santa Rosa Landmark in 1993. The Cultural Heritage Board initially denied the application,
however the Santa Rosa City Council agreed with the applicant and found the sign eligible for
landmark status.33
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Age
This first consideration for determining a property’s eligibility is age. Typically a building must
be at least 50 years old, unless special circumstances exist. The revolving sign was installed at
the site circa 1960 and the first structures of the shopping center were constructed in 1962. The
original vision of an outdoor regional shopping center was completed in 1967, with the
construction of the second anchor story, J.C. Penney. The buildings of the 1960s original
shopping center range in age from 45 to 50 years old. A property under 50 years old may be
listed on the NRHP only if it is “of exceptional importance,” however the CRHR is less stringent
stating that a property may be considered “if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has
passed to understand [their] historical importance.”34 Therefore, due to the age and the potential
for special criteria considerations, the property is eligible for review.
The Gottschalks building was constructed in 1980 and is only 32 years old. As a result of the
research conducted for this report, no evidence has emerged that this building is of exceptional
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
importance or of any historical importance. It appears simply to be a typical commercial
shopping center structure of its period and does not maintain any historical significance.
Criterion A (NRHP)/ Criterion 1(CRHR): The Coddingtown Regional Shopping Center was part
of a the mass decentralization of urban centers that occurred throughout the 1950s and 1960s in
the United States. In Santa Rosa, the shopping center was part of the larger overall development
of the area northwest of the downtown. Spearheaded by Hugh Codding, the area eventually
featured not only commercial development, but also residential subdivisions, an industrial park,
professional offices, theaters, and even an airport. The examples of decentralization are
numerous throughout the nation and the state, but the role the shopping center played as a
catalyst for the development of the Coddingtown area may be significant at a local level. It does
not appear that the property would be significant under Criteria A/1, because its associations
with events of the broad patterns of our history, i.e., the decentralization of the urban downtown,
are not particularly unique to the nation or the state, but the property may have some
significance locally in relation to the development of northwest Santa Rosa.
Criterion B(NRHP)/Criterion 2(CRHR): Hugh Codding was a larger-than-life character in the
history of Santa Rosa. As arguably the most significant local developer in the second half of the
twentieth century, he had significant influence on the growth of postwar Santa Rosa. As
evidenced by the sign, Coddingtown was Codding’s project from the start, and Codding
Enterprises remains partial owner of the shopping center today. It appears the property may have
some significance under Criteria B/2 at the local level only for its association with Hugh
Codding, a significant person in the history of Santa Rosa.35
Criterion C(NRHP)/Criterion 3(CRHR): The structures constructed in the 1960s were designed
by the firm Welton Becket and Associates out of their San Francisco office. Welton Becket was
a large national firm that designed a significant number of commercial properties. Notably,
Stonestown Mall in San Francisco, constructed in 1950, was an early regional shopping center
designed by the firm. The design of Coddingtown was never realized as it had initially be
rendered in 1962, yet many of the overall characteristics appeared, such as the general
configuration of the buildings and the colonnaded portico that surrounded most structures. The
influence of Welton Becket is visible today in the two anchor stores at the east and west ends,
which also still embody the Modern architectural style popular in mid-century commercial
architecture. However, Coddingtown is not a notable design of Becket or the firm. Some of his
renowned projects include the Kaiser Center in Oakland, the Capitol Records Building in
Hollywood, and the Los Angeles Music Center.
Further, the revolving sign tower (design unknown) is illustrative of the period and is a modest
example of the Googie style. Googie as an architectural style within Modernism developed
through commercial vernacular architecture, centered in Los Angeles, in the early 1950s.The
style is characterized by bright colors, rakish diagonal, and bold signs.36
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
It appears that only Buildings G and H, the anchor department stores, may meet the criteria for
eligibility under Criterion 3/1, however these buildings are only modest examples of Modern
commercial architecture and of the work of Welton Becket. Additionally, the tower sign appears
potentially eligible for listing as a local example of a modest Googie design.
Criterion D (NRHP)/ Criterion 4(CRHR): This criterion is associated with archeology and, at
this time, it does not appear that the subject property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Significance Summary
After an initial evaluation of the shopping center, it appears that the property may have minor
significance under Criterion A/1 for its association with the development of northwest Santa
Rosa, under Criterion B/2 for its association with Hugh Codding, and under Criterion C/3 as the
work of Welton Becket completed in the Modern style. Independently, the sign tower appears to
maintain local significance for its association with Hugh Codding and for its Googie style.
Overall, the historic significance of the property under any of the three criteria appears to be
minor and only potentially significant at the local level. Further, as much of the property is less
than 50 years old and does not appear to be of exceptional importance, the property would not be
eligible for listing on the NRHP Because the threshold is lower, the property may have some
significance at the state level, therefore the level of integrity is assessed below.
Integrity
After the historic significance has been established, a property’s integrity must also be assessed.
For a property to qualify as historically significant under either the NRHP or the CRHR, it must
retain historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.37 While a
property’s significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to
“a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.”38 Further, for a building
to meet registration requirements under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as an individual resource,
the property would need to retain sufficient character-defining features in order to reflect design
intent. To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic
context, the NRHP and the CRHR have identified seven aspects of integrity (explained above),
as follows:
1. Location
The property remains at its original site and retains the integrity of location.
2. Design
The original design of the shopping center has been significantly altered. The original Lucky’s
building has been demolished and portions of the Thrity were also partially demolished. Both
were replaced with new structures. The outdoor pedestrian promenades were enclosed and a new
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
two-story anchor department store constructed. New entrances have been constructed at two
locations and facades are currently being renovated. The single-story commercial buildings
retain some of the original design elements, namely the colonnaded portico, but it appears that
the exterior wall cladding has been altered on several buildings and features, such as projecting
eaves have been removed. . The only two buildings that appear to retain their integrity of design
are the two anchor department stores at the east and west ends of the shopping center (J.C.
Penney and Macy’s). Overall, the shopping center does not retain its integrity of design.
3. Setting
The overall setting remains essentially the same as at the time of the original construction. The
shopping center is surrounded by a large parking area, is adjacent to U.S. highway 101, and there
is development at the outskirts of the property. Although, there are no longer any orchards
nearby, the property itself essentially retains its integrity of setting.
4. Materials
Only the two anchor stores retain the integrity of their materials. The majority of the single-story
commercial buildings have been so significantly altered , that they no longer maintain their
integrity of material.
5. Workmanship
The only workmanship evident is in the two anchor stores, as the outward expression of the
technology of the period, i.e. the exposed structure, it still evident. The remaining structures have
been so extensively altered that the overall property no longer maintains its integrity of
workmanship.
6. Feeling
The extensive alterations have greatly altered the feeling of the overall property. Only portions of
the shopping center, namely the J.C. Penney and Macy’s buildings, clearly express the Modern
aesthetic. Because the property no longer maintains its expression of its period as a whole, it
does not retain the integrity of feeling.
7. Association
The property maintains its associations with Hugh Codding and with the historical development
of northwest Santa Rosa, primarily through the revolving sign tower and the recognition of the
general neighborhood as Coddingtown.
Overall, the property does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Only three
pieces of the overall property possess integrity: the two anchor department stores and the
revolving tower sign. The shopping center was developed as a whole composed of eight
buildings. Because six of the buildings have been extensively altered and additions have been
constructed, the property is no longer able to convey it original design intent and expression.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
At the request of GHD Inc., a historic resource evaluation has been conducted on the subject
property prior to the demolition of the former Liberty House/Gottschalks building and the
development of a new Target store. Coddingtown Mall is not currently listed on either the
national or state register, however the revolving tower sign in the parking lot is a designated as a
Santa Rosa Landmark. After a physical evaluation of the property and an examination of related
archival material, it appears that the shopping center as a whole would be ineligible for the
National Register of Historic Places due to portions of the property’s age (i.e., under 50 years)
and general lack of significance. This evaluation also indicates that the shopping center is
ineligible for the California Register of Historic Resources and designation as a Santa Rosa
Landmark due to its lack of integrity. Only the revolving Coddingtown tower sign, a listed Santa
Rosa Landmark, appears to maintain any historical significance. .39
For the purposes of the California Environmental Qualities Act, the buildings at Coddingtown
Mall would not be considered historic resources as defined by Section 15064.5. The
Coddingtown tower sign is the only historic resource within the vicinity of the project and it does
not appear the sign would be impacted by the proposed work.. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have a significant impact on any historic resources.
Consultant Qualifications
Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, the author meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s qualification standards for professionals in historic architecture and architectural
history.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
ENDNOTES
1. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, No. 15. (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1997)
; California. Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Nomination Historical Resources to the California
Register of Historical Resources, (Sacramento: California State Parks, 1997); and Santa Rosa City Code, sec. 17.22
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/cityadmin/cityclerk/Pages/CityCode.aspx (accessed March 2012.)
2. Ibid.
3. Gaye LeBaron, “‘Ization’ of Santa Rosa is an ongoing process,” The Press Democrat, (December 11, 2005), B1
and B4; and Gaye LeBaron and Joann Mitchell, Santa Rosa: a Twentieth Century Town, (Santa Rosa: Historia, Ltd.,
1993), 329.
4. The early history of Codding and Montgomery Village has been summarized from Gaye LeBaron and Joann
Mitchell, Santa Rosa: a Twentieth Century Town, (Santa Rosa: Historia, Ltd., 1993), chapter 18; and Lee Tortiatt,
“Hugh Codding and the American Dream,” Sonoma Historian,(2009 no. 1), 6-13.
5. Tortiatt, 7.
6. Gaye LeBaron, “Hugh Codding dies at 92,” The Press Democrat,
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100404/ARTICLES/100409836 (accessed March 2012.)
7. “A Brief History,” The Press Democrat (June 4, 1975), 3C-4C.
8. Hugh Codding newsletter to the Shareholders, (January 6, 1964) Hugh Codding Clippings File, Sonoma County
History and Genealogy Library.
9. City of Santa Rosa Planning Department, “Santa Rosa Internal Annexation Map,” (accessed March 7, 2012.)
10. According to Dunn, the tower would have been erected in 1960, however a story from the Press Democrat (June
4, 1975) dates the tower to early 1962. James Dunn “Hugh: The Biography of Hugh Codding,” Sonoma Business
Journal (March 1994), 40; and “A Brief History,” The Press Democrat, (June 4, 1975), Coddingtown Section, 4C.
11. “A Brief History,” The Press Democrat, (June 4, 1975), Coddingtown Section, 4C.
12. Excerpt from Teresa Grimes, Historic American Building Survey Written History, Los Angeles Music Center,
http://www.musiccenter.org/visit/wb.html (accessed March 2012.)
13. Ellerbe Becket website. http://www.ellerbebecket.com/ (accessed March 2012.)
14. “Coddingtown – New Chapter In Santa Rosa’s Expansion,” The Press Democrat (November 28, 1962),
Coddingtown Section, 1.
15. Aerial photograph 1964. On file Sonoma County Library.
http://catalog.sonomalibrary.org/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=W332444I9D678.41598&profile=dial&uri=full=3100001~
!771268~!5&ri=1&aspect=subtab26&menu=search&source=~!horizon (accessed March 22, 2012); and “Sweet
Sixteen Anniversary Remembered.” April 12, 1978: 1B.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
16. “Codding Enterprises Annual Report 1981,” Hugh Codding Clippings File.
17. Robert Digitale, “Back on Track?” The Press Democrat (June 27, 2010)
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100627/BUSINESS/100629613 (accessed March 2012.)
18. There are conflicting references to the date of the sign’s construction. It was completed between 1960 and 1962,
and was the first structure erected. James Dunn “Hugh: The Biography of Hugh Codding,” Sonoma Business
Journal (March 1994), 40, states that the sign sat in a walnut grove for two years before the shopping center opened.
However, “A Brief History,” The Press Democrat, (June 4, 1975), Coddingtown Section, 4C, references two
newspaper articles from January 1962 that would date the construction of the sign to 1962.
19. “Foresight of Hugh Codding Helped Speed City’s Growth,” The Press Democrat, (March 17, 1968), 18.
20. Codding Construction website, http://www.coddingconstruction.com/ (accessed March 22, 2012.)
21. Codding Construction website. “Old Navy Opening at Coddingtown Mall,” The Press Democrat, April 18,
2003.
22. Codding Construction website. http://coddingconstruction.com/projects/whole-foods-coddingtown (accessed
March 2012); and “Mall Overhaul Begins,” The Press Democrat,
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080402/NEWS/804020361 (accessed March 2012.)
23. Jeff Quackenbush, “Coddingtown Renovation set to start in May,” North Bay Business Journal, (April 21,
2011); and City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board Meeting Minutes (May 19, 2011) http://ci.santarosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Pages/20110519-DRB_Minutes.aspx (accessed March 22, 2012.)
24. City of Santa Rosa, Department of Community Development, Staff Report for Design Review Board (September
1, 2011) http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/20110901_DRB_BJs.pdf (accessed
on March 22, 2012.)
25. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, no. 15
(Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1997), 3.
26. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register Bulletin, no. 16A
(Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1997), 75.
27. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 3.
28. Ibid., 44.
29. Ibid., 44-45.
30. Ibid., 45.
31. California Register and National Register: A Comparison, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical
Assistance Series, no. 6 (Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2006), 1.
32. Ibid.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
33. Resolution Number 44, Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board, December, 9. 1992.
34. California Register and National Register: A Comparison: 3.
35. The Cultural Heritage Board associates the significance of the Coddingtown Sign with Hugh Codding, a locally
significant person. City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage board Meeting Minutes (April 12, 2000) http://ci.santarosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/20000412_CHB_Minutes.html (accessed March 22, 2012.)
36. Alan Hess, Googie, Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1985.)
37. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 3.
38. Ibid., 44.
39. The revolving Coddingtown tower sign may be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places at the local
level of significance pending further documentation.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
BIBLIOGRAPHY
California. Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Nomination Historical Resources to
the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California State Parks, 1997.
___. California Register and National Register: A Comparison. Technical Assistance Series, no.
6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2006.
City of Santa Rosa. Cultural Heritage Board. Processing Review Procedures for owners of
historic properties. Adopted January 9, 2001. Numeration added September 2006.
___. Cultural Heritage Board. Resolution Number 44, December, 9. 1992.
___. Cultural Heritage Board. Meeting Minutes, April 12, 2000.
___. City Code. Quality Code Publishing: December 2011. http://ci.santarosa.ca.us/departments/cityadmin/cityclerk/Pages/CityCode.aspx (accessed March 2012.)
___. Department of Community Development. Staff Report for Design Review Board,
September 1, 2011. http://ci.santarosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/20110901_DRB_BJs.pdf
(accessed on March 22, 2012.)
___. Design Review Board. Meeting Minutes, May 19, 2011. http://ci.santarosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Pages/20110519-DRB_Minutes.aspx
(accessed March 22, 2012.)
___. Planning Department. “Santa Rosa Internal Annexation Map.” (accessed at the Planning
Department March 7, 2012.)
___. Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. Santa Rosa, November 3, 2009.
Clausen, Meredith L. “Northgate Regional Shopping Center – Paradigm from the Provinces.”
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 43, No. 2 (March, 1984): 144161.
Codding Enterprises website. www.codding.com (accessed March 2012.)
Codding Construction website. www.coddingconstruction.com (accessed March 2012.)
Codding, Hugh. Clippings file. Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
Coddingtown. Clippings files. Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library.
Dunn, James. “Hugh: The Biography of Hugh Codding.” Sonoma Business Journal. March
1994.
Gebhard, David, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge and Sally Woodbridge.
A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. Santa Barbara and
Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1973.
Grimes, Teresa. Excerpt from Historic American Building Survey Written History, Los Angeles
Music Center. http://www.musiccenter.org/visit/wb.html (accessed March 2012.)
Hess, Alan, Googie, Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1985.
LeBaron, Gaye. “’Discussions’ Over Santa Rosa Plaza Nothing New.” The Press Democrat.
March 4, 2012.
___. “Hugh Codding Dies at 92.” April 4, 2010.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100404/ARTICLES/100409836 (accessed
March 2012.)
___. “‘Ization’ of Santa Rosa is an ongoing process.” The Press Democrat. December 11, 2005:
B1 and B4.
LeBaron, Gaye and Joann Mitchell. Santa Rosa: a Twentieth Century Town. Santa Rosa: Historia
ltd., 1993.
Longstreth, Richard. “The Diffusion of the Community Shopping Center Concept during the
Interwar Decades.” Journal for the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 56, No. 3
(Sep., 1997): 268-293.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1992.
The Press Democrat.
___. “Back on Track?” June 27, 2010.
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100627/BUSINESS/100629613 (accessed March
2012.)
___. “A Brief History.” June 4, 1975: Coddingtown Section, 4C.
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
___. “Codding Remembered.” April 9, 2010.
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100419/ARTICLES/100419480 (accessed March
2012.)
___. “Emporium Planning $6 Million Store at Coddingtown with 1966 Target Date.” January 26,
1965: A.1.
___. “Foresight of Hugh Codding Helped Speed City’s Growth.” March 17, 1968: 18.
___. “Gottschalks Likely to Open at Coddingtown Store Seeks to Take Over Old Macy’s.”
February 27, 1997: A.1.
___. “PD: There was No One Quite Like Hugh Codding.”April 3, 2010.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100403/OPINION/100409827? (accessed
March 2012.)
___. “Remembering Hugh Codding’s Unique Vision for Santa Rosa.” April 18, 2010.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100418/NEWS/4181036?templ (accessed
March 2012.)
___. “SR Plaza Owner Buys Coddingtown Stake.” November 23, 2005.
___. “Sweet Sixteen Anniversary Remembered.” April 12, 1978: Section B.
Quackenbush, Jeff. “Coddingtown Renovation set to start in May.” North Bay Business Journal,
April 21, 2011.
Rifkind, Carole. A Field Guide to American Architecture. New York: Plume, 1980.
Sanborn Map Company. Santa Rosa, CA. New York, 1904.
Tortiatt, Lee. “Hugh Codding and the American Dream.” Sonoma Historian. 2009, no. 1: 6-13.
United States Department of the Interior. National Park Service. How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, No. 15. Washington, D.C.:
United States Department of the Interior, 1997.
Welton Becket, FAIA. http://www.ellerbebecket.com/100/founder_welton_becket.html
March 27, 2012
at Coddingtown Mall
(accessed March 2012.)
Project Drawings on File at the Coddingtown Mall Property Management Office
MKM & Associates, Structural Engineers. Gottschalks, Coddingtown Mall. April 1997.
Welton Becket and Associates, Architects Engineers. The Emporium – Santa Rosa,
Coddingtown Shopping Center. April 1, 1965.
Welton Becket and Associates, Architects Engineers. Coddingtown Regional Shopping
Center. August 1965.
Appendix D
Summary Results
Project Name: Target
Project and Baseline Years:
Project‐Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year)
2013
N/A
Transportation:
Results
Unmitigated Project‐
Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year)
Transportation:
Area Source:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Water & Wastewater:
Solid Waste:
Agriculture:
Off‐Road Equipment:
Refrigerants:
Sequestration:
Purchase of Offsets:
Total:
Mitigated Project‐
Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year)
2,236.13
0.23
321.07
20.32
4.14
96.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
2,678.41
929.88
0.23
287.32
18.39
3.97
86.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,326.65
Baseline is currently: OFF
Baseline Project Name:
Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline
Area Source:
0.23 0.23 321.07 287.32 Electricity:
20.32 18.39 Natural Gas:
Water & Wastewater:
2,236.13 929.88 4.14 3.97 96.53 86.87 Solid Waste:
Agriculture:
0.00 0.00 Off‐Road Equipment:
0.00 0.00 Refrigerants:
0.00 0.00 Sequestration:
0.00 0.00 Purchase of Offsets:
0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated
Mitigated
500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 Detailed Results
Unmitigated
Transportation*:
Area Source:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Water & Wastewater:
Solid Waste:
Agriculture:
Refrigerants:
Sequestration:
Total:
CO2 ( t i t )
CO2 (metric tpy)
0.23
320.55
20.27
4.13
1.49
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
CH4 ( t i t )
CH4 (metric tpy)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.53
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N2O ( t i t )
N2O (metric tpy)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
CO2e (metric tpy)
CO2
( ti t )
2,236.13
0.23
321.07
20.32
4.14
96.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
2,678.41
% of Total
%
fT t l
83.49%
0.01%
11.99%
0.76%
0.15%
3.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
N/A
N/A
100.00%
* Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS. After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley"
regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air conditioners]
Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule
Mitigated
Transportation*:
Area Source:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Water & Wastewater:
Solid Waste:
Agriculture:
Refrigerants:
Sequestration:
Total:
CO2 (metric tpy)
CH4 (metric tpy)
N2O (metric tpy)
0.23
286.86
18.34
3.96
1.34
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.07
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
CO2e (metric tpy)
929.88
0.23
287.32
18.39
3.97
86.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,326.65
% of Total
70.09%
0.02%
21.66%
1.39%
0.30%
6.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Baseline
Transportation*:
Area Source:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Water & Wastewater:
Solid Waste:
Agriculture:
Refrigerants:
Sequestration:
Total:
CO2 ( t i t ) CH4 (metric tpy)
CO2 (metric tpy)
CH4 ( t i t ) N2O (metric tpy)
N2O ( t i t ) CO2
CO2e (metric tpy)
( ti t )
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
% of Total
%
fT t l
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
Appendix E
for the Coddingtown Target
Prepared for the
City of Santa Rosa
Submitted by
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
490 Mendocino Avenue
Suite 201
475 14th Street
Suite 290
Oakland, CA 94612
voice 707.542.9500
voice 510.444.2600
web www.w-trans.com
April 18, 2012
Balancing Functionality and Livability
Traffic Engineering l Transportation Planning
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Transportation Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................13 Alternative Modes ..........................................................................................................................................28 Access and Circulation ..................................................................................................................................29 Parking ...............................................................................................................................................................30 Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................................................32 Study Participants and References ..............................................................................................................33 Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area and Lane Configurations.............................................................................................................. 6 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................. 16 Net New Project Trips ................................................................................................................................... 21 Diverted Traffic Volumes................................................................................................................................ 22 Pass-by Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................. 23 Tables
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Collision Rates at the Study Intersections .................................................................................................... 8 Bicycle Facility Summary ................................................................................................................................. 10 Intersection Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................................................... 14 Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations ...................................... 15 Trip Distribution Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 20 Summary of Existing and Existing plus Project .......................................................................................... 24 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations ............................................................................. 24 Appendices
A
B
C
D
Collision Rate Spreadsheets
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Future Growth Rate Derivation
Shared Parking Summary
Traffic Impact Study for the Coddingtown Target in the City of Santa Rosa
April 18, 2012
Page i
Executive Summary
The proposed project includes the demolition of the anchor store space most recently occupied by
Gottschalks as well as some small stores along the perimeter of the Coddingtown Mall in the City of
Santa Rosa. The 201,631 square feet of store space being demolished will be replaced with a 143,487
square foot Target store. The trip generation for the Coddingtown Mall as a whole is expected to
decrease by 1,327 trips on average during a weekday, including 171 fewer trips during the p.m. peak
hour. Likewise, the site’s trip generation will decrease by 2,078 trips on average on a Saturday, including
242 fewer trips during the midday peak hour.
The study area was established to include intersections where both streets are either Regional/Arterial
Streets or Transitional/Collector Streets. The analysis indicates that all of the 13 study intersections are
currently operating acceptably, with average delays indicating LOS D operation or better, and acceptable
operation is expected to continue with project-generated traffic added. It should be noted that because
the anchor tenant space was mostly unoccupied, so not generating trips, when the traffic counts were
taken, there is a net increase in trips due to the project compared to existing conditions. The analysis
reflects 138 added new p.m. peak hour trips and an increase of 156 new trips during the weekend peak
hour once deductions for pass-by (trips already on Guerneville Road, Range Avenue or Cleveland
Avenue) and diverted link trips (trips already on US 101) are taken.
Because the project results in fewer trips than would be generated by re-occupation of the existing
anchor tenant space, the project has a net beneficial impact on future traffic operation compared to
what has been evaluated based on projections that include the existing shopping center space. The
potential impact in light of the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan was also evaluated, and the change in
use is again expected to have a net beneficial impact compared with re-occupation of the existing, but
currently vacant, anchor store space.
The study intersections of Guerneville Road/Range Avenue and Steele Lane/US 101 North Ramps
experienced collisions at a rate higher than the statewide average for intersections with similar
configurations and controls. The intersection of Guerneville Road/Range Avenue has recently been
upgraded to reduce pedestrian crossing time, which improves conditions at this location. The recent US
101 Widening project added capacity that can be expected to reduce the congestion-related types of
crashes that occur at this location.
The study area has a well-connected system of existing and planned facilities for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Transit users are well served at the project site by the Northside Transit Transfer Center
located at the Coddingtown Mall.
Site access will remain unchanged with the project. Some minor modifications in terms of the
orientation of parking fields in the area to the south of the store are expected to improve circulation.
The parking supply of 3,323 spaces proposed does not meet the parking requirements under the City’s
Code of 3,424 parking spaces, but analysis of shared parking indicates that a supply of 3,183 parking
spaces is sufficient. It is recommended that the City accept the shared parking analysis and proposed
parking supply through approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
April 18, 2012
Page 1
Introduction
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with
development of a proposed Target Store to be located at the Coddingtown Mall in the City of Santa
Rosa. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Santa
Rosa, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers with data that they can
use to make an informed decision regarding the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any
associated improvements that would be required in order to mitigate these impacts to a less-thansignificant level as defined by the City’s General Plan or other policies. Vehicular traffic impacts are
typically evaluated by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to
generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or
anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the impact the new traffic
would be expected to have on critical intersections or roadway segments. Impacts relative to safety,
including for pedestrians and bicyclists, and to transit are also addressed.
Project Profile
The proposed Target Store is intended to be developed within areas currently occupied by the space
that most recently housed Gottschalks as well as a portion of the parking lot and some small stores
along the perimeter of the Coddingtown Mall in the City of Santa Rosa. The project includes a 143,487
square foot Target store. As part of the project, 46,754 square feet of space currently occupied by
small shops as well as the 154,877 anchor building will be demolished.
The project site is located within the Coddingtown Mall, as shown in Figure 1.
April 18, 2012
Page 2
Steele Lane Road
oad
ville R
Guern
STOP
Cle
vel
and
STOP
STOP
14 '
21 '
Av
e
STOP
STOP
STOP
24 '
STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
30 '
24 '
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
S
SHOP
STOP
STOP
31 .3'
S
SHOP
STOP STOP
STOP
25 '
STOP
30 1.8
'
S
SHOP
STOP
S
SHOP
35 '
STOP
S
SHOP
K
TRUC
DOCK
52 '
EL
EV
ER L
SERV
22 4'
3
ICE
PP
OF U
ONLY
STOP
17 .5'
LINE
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
24 '
'
ONLY
22 6.8
ONLY
24 '
K
TRUC
DOCK
25 '
75 '
93 '
STOP
OSED
PROP
STOP
BUS STOP
'
TRUCK
DOCK
19 3'
11 9.8
'
STOP
STOP
K
TRUC
DOCK
STOP
Range Road
30 1.8
4
15 3.5
STOP
LINE
OF UPPE
R LEVE
'
L
40 .7'
81 .5'
10 5'
STOP
STOP
24 '
STOP
STOP
STOP
25 .6'
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
NO T
STOP
STOP
STOP
RT
A PA
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
33
.C
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
.E
Bldg
Bldg
.F
Co d
ding
town
4
Bldg
ark
eP
Offic
ards
STOP
.D
Bldg
STOP
.A
Edw
Ave
Cleveland Ave
Bldg
.B
Bldg
Entrance Locations Key
North
Not to Scale
Traffic Impact Study for the Coddingtown Target
City of Santa Rosa
311sro.ai
4/12
Figure 1
Site Plan
Transportation Setting
Operational Analysis
Study Area and Periods
The study area consists of the following study intersections as well as the sections of Guerneville Road,
Range Avenue and Cleveland Avenue surrounding the project site.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Guerneville Road/Range Avenue
Guerneville Road/West Steele Lane-Coddingtown Driveway
Guerneville Road/Cleveland Avenue
Steele Lane/US 101 South
Steele Lane/US 101 North
Steele Lane/Illinois Avenue-County Center Drive
Coddingtown Driveway/Cleveland Avenue
Jennings Avenue/Range Avenue
Jennings Avenue/Cleveland Avenue
Frances Street/Cleveland Avenue
College Avenue/Cleveland Avenue
College Avenue/US 101 South
College Avenue/US 101 North
In establishing the study area, intersections of streets identified in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 as
either Regional/Arterial Streets (such as Guerneville Road) or Transitional/Collector Streets (such as
Jennings Avenue) were included. Consideration was given to evaluating the intersections of Edwards
Avenue at both Range Avenue and Cleveland Avenue since a minimal amount of project traffic could use
this roadway, but a review of operation based on count data from 2008 for the evening peak hour
indicated that these two intersections at either end of the block are currently operating at LOS B or C,
well above the minimum threshold of LOS D. Further, a sensitivity analysis indicates that volumes
would need to increase by at least 50 percent on all movements for operation to deteriorate to
unacceptable levels. Since this preliminary assessment indicated that no improvements would be
necessary, it was determined that these two minor intersections did not warrant further study.
Operating conditions during the weekday p.m. and weekend midday peak periods were evaluated as
these time periods reflect the highest traffic volumes areawide and for the proposed project. The
evening peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of
congestion of the day during the homeward bound commute, while the weekend midday peak occurs
between 12:00 and 2:00 p.m.
Study Intersections
Guerneville Road/Range Avenue is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn
movements on the east-west Guerneville Road approaches and split, or exclusive, phasing on the northsouth Range Avenue movements. Crosswalks are provided on all approaches except across the
western leg of Guerneville Road.
Guerneville Road/West Steele Lane-Coddingtown Driveway is a signalized, four-legged intersection with
protected left-turn movements on the east-west Guerneville Road approaches and split phasing on the
north-south West Steele Lane-Coddingtown Driveway movements as well as right-turn overlaps on the
northbound, southbound and eastbound approaches. Crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided
on all approaches.
April 18, 2012
Page 4
Guerneville Road/Cleveland Avenue is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn
movements on the east-west Guerneville Road approaches and split phasing on the north-south
Cleveland Avenue movements as well as right-turn overlap phasing on the westbound approach.
Crosswalks are provided on all approaches except across the eastern leg of Guerneville Road.
Steele Lane/US 101 South is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the
westbound Steele Lane approach while the southbound US 101 off-ramp approach has an exclusive
phase. Crosswalks are provided on the northern and southern legs.
Steele Lane/US 101 North is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the
eastbound Steele Lane approach and an exclusive phase for the northbound US 101 off-ramp approach.
Crosswalks are provided on the northern and southern legs.
Steele Lane/Illinois Avenue-County Center Drive is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected leftturn movements on the east-west Steele Lane approaches and split phasing on the north-south Illinois
Avenue-County Center Drive movements as well as right-turn overlap phasing on the southbound
approach. Crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided on all approaches.
Coddingtown Driveway/Cleveland Avenue is a signalized, tee intersection with protected/permitted left-turn
phasing on the northbound Cleveland Avenue approach and exclusive phasing on the eastbound
Coddingtown Driveway approach. A crosswalk is provided on the western leg.
Jennings Avenue/Range Avenue is an all-way stop-controlled, four-legged intersection with crosswalks on
the northern approach of Range Avenue and the western approach of Jennings Avenue.
Jennings Avenue/Cleveland Avenue is a tee intersection with a stop control on the eastbound approach of
Jennings Avenue. A crosswalk is provided on the Jennings Avenue leg.
Frances Street/Cleveland Avenue is a signalized tee intersection with protected/permitted left-turn phasing
on the northbound Cleveland Avenue approach and exclusive phasing and a right-turn overlap on the
eastbound Frances Street approach. A crosswalk is provided on the western leg.
College Avenue/Cleveland Avenue is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing
on all four approaches as well as right-turn overlap phasing on the westbound approach. Crosswalks
are provided on all approaches except across the eastern leg of College Avenue.
College Avenue/US 101 South is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing on
the westbound College Avenue approach and an exclusive phase on the southbound US 101 off-ramp
approach. Crosswalks are provided on the northern and southern legs.
College Avenue/US 101 North is a signalized, four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing on
the eastbound College Avenue approach and an exclusive phase on the northbound US 101 off-ramp
approach. Crosswalks are provided on the northern and southern legs.
The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in
Figure 2.
April 18, 2012
Page 5
1
LEGEND
y
ive
Dr
o
C
t
Cen
Study Intersection
5
r
7
Project
Site
6
nue
Ave
s
d
war
Ed
W Steele Ln
2
3
ille
rnev
Gue Rd
Guerneville Rd
US 101 SB
4
Cleveland Avenue
G
ue
Range Avenue
1
lle
vi
e
n
e
Gu
Steele Ln
Illinois Avenue
2
4
3
d
Roa
Rd
Range Ave
u
er nt
West Steele Lane
ille
v
rne
Cleveland Ave
US 101 NB
5
Steele Ln
9
8
ngs
Jenni
ue
Aven
County
Center Dr
6
Steele Ln
Steele Ln
Cleveland Ave
7
gtown
Coddin
Frances Street
Dwy
Illinois Ave
10
8
12
11
9
College Avenue
ve
ings A
Jenn
s Ave
101
Jenning
College Ave
Cleveland Ave
Range Ave
US 101 SB
10
Cleveland Ave
Cleveland Ave
13
College Avenue
11
12
13
Frances St
North
College Ave
US 101 NB
Not to Scale
311sro.ai
4/12
Figure 2
Study Area and Lane Configurations
City of Santa Rosa
Study Roadways
Guerneville Road-Steele Lane has a minimum of two east-west through lanes in each direction plus leftturn lanes at intersections within the study area. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph)
west of Range Avenue and decreases to 35 mph east of Range Avenue. This road is classified in the
Santa Rosa General Plan as a regional/arterial street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street.
Class II bicycle lanes are provided along both sides of the street west of West Steele Lane-Coddingtown
Driveway.
Range Avenue-Frances Street north of Guerneville Road is a four-lane north-south street with left-turn
lanes at intersections. Along the frontage of Coddingtown Mall the corridor has five lanes (two lanes in
each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane) that transition to a two-lane street south of the mall.
A two-way left turn lane is present south of Jennings Avenue for approximately 900 feet where the
street turns into Frances Street and transitions back to a two-lane roadway. North of Guerneville Road
the posted speed limit is 40 mph, and to the south it is 30 mph. The Santa Rosa General Plan classifies
this road as a transitional/collector street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street north of
Edwards Avenue, but south of this street they are intermittent. Bicycle lanes are provided on Range
Avenue north of Steele Lane, and a southbound bicycle lane is provided along a recent residential
development south of Jennings Avenue.
Cleveland Avenue has four north-south lanes, with two lanes southbound, one lane northbound and a
center two-way left-turn lane. However; adjacent to Coddingtown Mall, the street widens to two lanes
in each direction plus a center two-way left-turn lane which continues to the north. The posted speed
limit is 35 mph. This segment is classified as a regional/arterial street. Continuous sidewalks are
provided along both sides of the street to the north of Guerneville Road. To the south of Guerneville
Road, sidewalks exist along the west side of the street, but most of the east side of the street abuts the
freeway and therefore has no sidewalks (and no pedestrian demand). Sidewalks do exist on the east
side of the street near Coddingtown Mall and south of Ridgway Avenue where Cleveland Avenue is
further away from the freeway.
Collision History
The collision histories for the study intersections were reviewed to determine any trends or patterns
that may indicate a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the
California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
reports. The study covered the most current three-year period available, which is January 1, 2008,
through December 31, 2010.
The calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average collision rates for
similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2007 Collision Data on California State Highways, California
Department of Transportation. With the exception of Guerneville Road at Range Avenue and Steele
Lane at US 101 North, all of the study intersections were determined to have experienced collisions at a
lower rate than the statewide average for similar facilities (four-way signalized intersection, stopcontrolled tee intersection, etc.).
The collision records for Guerneville Road and Range Avenue were further reviewed for any indication
of a specific concern as indicated by a high incidence of one type of crash. However, with five different
primary collision factors among the 19 collisions and seven different approach direction combinations,
no particular pattern is apparent. Of most concern is a fatal pedestrian crash that occurred in 2009 and
a bicycle-involved crash four months later. Both of these crashes involved westbound through vehicles
and pedestrians or cyclists crossing Guerneville Road, though from the available data fault cannot be
determined nor can it be ascertained if they were on the east or west side of the intersection. The
April 18, 2012
Page 7
fatality occurred around sunset, which may have contributed. The City completed a project during the
summer of 2011 that reduced the length of the crossing on the east leg, and this project would be
expected to have a positive impact on pedestrian safety.
It should be noted that the collision records for the Steele Lane interchange do not differentiate
between the northbound and southbound ramps, so crashes involving only vehicles on Steele Lane
(eastbound and westbound) were assigned to one or the other ramp intersection based on the direction
and type of crash. There were six crashes assigned to the northbound ramp intersection that could
have occurred at the southbound ramp intersection, and the rates for these two intersections together
averages out to be almost equal to the statewide average. However, since the rate developed for the
northbound ramp was higher than the applicable statewide average, the crash records were reviewed in
greater detail. It was noted that of the 25 collisions assigned to the intersection, there were six primary
factors, though by far the greatest incidence was rear-ends (eleven crashes) followed by broadside and
sideswipe (five each). Directionally, the most predominant combination was two northbound vehicles
(ten collisions). This type of collision history is common at intersections that experience congestion or
where there are multiple lanes and drivers make sudden lane changes. With only five collisions in the
last year of the study period, it appears that the capacity enhancements (added lanes as part of the US
101 widening project) and signal timing improvements (implementation of adaptive signal timing) have
improved operation and safety. Finally, it should be noted that there was a pedestrian-involved crash at
this location as well, though it resulted in injuries and not a fatality.
The results of the collision rate analysis are presented in Table 1 and copies of the calculation sheets are
provided in Appendix A.
Table 1
Collision Rates at the Study Intersections
Study Intersection
Number of Calculated
Collision
Collisions
(2008-2010) Rate (c/mve)
Statewide
Average
Collision
Rate (c/mve)
1. Guerneville Rd/Range Ave
19
0.58
0.43
2. Guerneville Rd/W Steele Ln
10
0.37
0.43
3. Guerneville Rd/Cleveland Ave
18
0.39
0.43
4. Steele Ln/US 101 South
16
0.33
0.43
5. Steele Ln/US 101 North
25
0.54
0.43
6. Steele Ln/Illinois Ave-County Center Dr
8
0.22
0.43
7. Coddingtown Dwy/Cleveland Ave
0
0.00
0.35
8. Jennings Ave/Range Ave
1
0.22
0.22
9. Jennings Ave/Cleveland Ave
1
0.11
0.14
10. Frances St/Cleveland Ave
3
0.23
0.28
11. College Ave/Cleveland Ave
12
0.32
0.43
12. College Ave/US 101 South
8
0.20
0.43
13. College Ave/US 101 North
12
0.30
0.43
Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering
April 18, 2012
Page 8
Alternative Modes
Bicycle
Santa Rosa has an established citywide network of existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
including a connected system of existing routes in the study area. Obstacles to bicycle movement in the
study area include the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) track and US 101, both of which run in
a generally north-south direction and limit east-west access between residential neighborhoods and
major community destinations. East-west access across the SMART rail corridor is provided at three atgrade crossings within the study area along the following streets: West Steele Lane, Guerneville Road,
and College Avenue. East-west access across the US 101 corridor is provided via highway
undercrossings at Steele Lane and College Avenue.
The Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan classifies bikeways into three categories:
•
•
•
Class I Bike Path: a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians with cross-flow minimized.
Class II Bike Lane: a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route: shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
Existing and planned bikeways in the Study Area, as contained in the 2010 Santa Rosa Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, are summarized in Table 2.
April 18, 2012
Page 9
Table 2
Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Facility
General Class Length
Alignment
(miles)
Begin Point
End Point
Existing
Guerneville Rd
E-W
II
1.23
West Steele Ln
Marlow Rd
Steele Lane
E-W
II
0.29
Salem Ave
Illinois Ave
Steele Ln
E-W
II
1.02
Range Ave
Marlow Rd
Range Ave
N-S
II
0.70
Russell Ave
Guerneville Rd
Range Ave (southbound only)
N-S
II
0.27
Jennings Ave
Briggs Ave
College Ave
E-W
II
1.46
Kowell Ln
Fulton Rd
SMART Pathway
N-S
I
1.83
Piner Rd
West College Ave
Steele Lane
E-W
II
0.12
Mendocino Ave
Salem Ave
Steele Ln/Guerneville Rd
E-W
II
0.86
Illinois Ave
Range Ave
College Ave
E-W
II
1.38
Mendocino Ave
Kowell Ln
Jennings Ave
E-W
III
1.30
SMART Path
Gamay Street
Jennings Ave Path
E-W
I
0.15
Range Ave
SMART Path
Jennings Ave
E-W
III
0.30
Cleveland Ave
Range Ave
Cleveland Ave
N-S
II
1.75
Bicentennial Way
West College Ave
Range Ave
N-S
II
0.13
Cleveland Ave
Briggs Ave
Range Ave
N-S
II
0.40
Jennings Avenue
Guerneville Rd
Planned
Source: City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Santa Rosa is served by an expanding network of Class II bike lanes on arterial streets and
off-street multi-use trails along local creeks. Significant portions of the City’s on-street bikeway
network within the study area are completed, and although the existing bikeway network is not
completely contiguous, bicyclists traveling to the site from outlying neighborhoods can choose from a
variety of on- and off-street bikeways that lead towards the site. In the immediate vicinity of the
Shopping Center, direct access is provided to the site for bicyclists from the west via Class II bike lanes
on Guerneville Road west of West Steele Lane.
Planned bikeway improvements in the study area can be found in a variety of City documents including
the Santa Rosa General Plan, the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the Citywide Creek Master
Plan, and the Capital Improvement Program. A Class I SMART multi-use pathway planned in the study
area would improve access to the site.
The SMART pathway is a proposed regional Class I bikeway that will provide a continuous nonmotorized transportation route within or adjacent to the SMART railroad right-of-way. The SMART
Path has been planned as the primary north-south route in the City and County’s primary bikeway
networks, and the overall project is a focal point in local and regional bikeway, land-use, and
transportation plans. Implementation of the SMART Path has begun in Santa Rosa. The first phase of
the project is funded for construction and will extend from 8th Street, adjacent to the Downtown
SMART Station, north to College Avenue. The second phase, which is currently unfunded, will extend
from College Avenue north to Jennings Avenue. The limits of Phase III, also unfunded, include the
April 18, 2012
Page 10
segment extending from Jennings Avenue north to Guerneville Road near the project site. Completion
of the pathway will allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel to the project site via primarily a dedicated
north-south multi-use pathway that is completely separate from the surrounding roadway network.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, curb ramps, and streetscape
amenities. Nearly complete sidewalk coverage, accessible curb ramps, and marked crosswalks are
provided along arterial streets in the study area. Sidewalks in the study area generally range in width
from four to ten feet. Pedestrian amenities provided throughout the study area include accessible
pedestrian ramps, pedestrian signals and crosswalk treatments.
While the pedestrian network is generally well-developed in the study area, there are some locations
where gaps in the sidewalk network can be found. Short gaps exist along undeveloped properties and
various frontages on College Avenue, Jennings Avenue, and Guerneville Road.
To address east-west access across US 101 in the Junior College and North Station Area, a bicycle and
pedestrian bridge over US 101 has been proposed. In 2008/09, the City conducted a feasibility study to
evaluate the need for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge in the area, and to identify potential alignments for
a bridge and its associated ramp structures. The study identified a preferred alignment that would
connect Elliot Avenue on the east side of US 101 to Coddingtown on west side, adjacent and through
the project site. Additional Caltrans studies are required to advance the project further, and while the
City has authorized additional work to provide environmental clearance documentation for the project,
due to costs and changing community priorities, a timeframe for project implementation is unknown at
this time.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Santa Rosa’s 2011/12 Capital improvement Plan (CIP), Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Citywide
Creek Master Plan include the following projects and/or programs affecting pedestrian and bicycle
circulation within the study area.
•
•
•
•
SMART Path Phase 3 Jennings Avenue to Guerneville Road (currently unfunded, included in the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) – Constructs a portion of the SMART multi-user path along the
rail corridor
Jennings Avenue Rail Crossing (funding included in 2011/12 CIP) – Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of
the SMART rail tracks
Highway 101 Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing (currently unfunded. Priority #1 in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan) – Pedestrian and bicycle overpass linking the SRJC area with the
Coddingtown Mall area
Improve Transit and Shuttle Service on the east side of Range Avenue at Coddingtown Mall to
include off-street stops and a bus turnaround area (funding from redevelopment included in 2011/12
CIP)
Transit
Santa Rosa CityBus
Santa Rosa CityBus is the primary transit provider in Santa Rosa. CityBus provides regularly-scheduled
fixed-route service to residential neighborhoods, major activity centers, and transit hubs within the City
limits. Seventeen fixed routes are operated with wheelchair accessible, low-floor buses which can
accommodate up to two bikes on bike racks attached to the front of each bus. CityBus routes are
April 18, 2012
Page 11
designed around a timed-transfer method where buses serving different routes arrive and depart at
designated transfer locations at routine periodic intervals. On weekdays, routes typically depart every
30 minutes between 6:00 a.m. and 7:45 p.m. On Saturdays, routes depart every hour between 6:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. (routes 9 and 12 depart every 30 minutes). On Sundays, routes typically depart every
hour between 10:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m.
The primary transit hub in the study area is the Northside Transit Transfer Center which is located on
the westerly side of the Coddingtown Mall. The Northside Transit Transfer Center consists of an
extended bus pullout with a series of all-weather transit shelters, benches, street lighting, bicycle
parking, and an information kiosk. The site serves CityBus routes 10, 11, 15, and 17.
Paratransit
Paratransit, also known as dial-a-ride or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to
independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. Individuals must be
registered and certified as ADA eligible before using the service. The City currently contracts out
paratransit service which provides curb-to-curb transportation for disabled riders within city limits and
in the Roseland area. Service hours are Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and
Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ride reservations can be scheduled daily.
Sonoma County Transit
Sonoma County Transit also provides regular service into and around the City of Santa Rosa and the
study area. Sonoma County Transit Routes 44 and 48 serve the Northside Transit Transfer Center and
run on a one to two hour headway schedule on weekdays and two to three hour headway schedule on
weekends.
SMART Rail Transit
The SMART commuter rail system is a 70-mile rail line that is planned to run from Cloverdale, at the
north end of Sonoma County, to Larkspur, where the Golden Gate Ferry connects Marin County with
San Francisco. Along the way, SMART will have stations at the major population and job centers of the
North Bay including the Guerneville Road station. At buildout, SMART will also provide a critical northsouth transportation route for bicyclists and pedestrians, with a combination of multi-use pathways and
on-street facilities located along or adjacent to the right-of-way between Cloverdale and Larkspur. The
14 stations along the corridor are being designed to accommodate available feeder bus services, shuttle
services and, in selected suburban locations, park and ride facilities. Commuter-oriented passenger train
service will be provided by an estimated 14 round-trip trains per day operating at 30-minute intervals in
the morning and evening peak commute hours during the week.
SMART is planning to initiate rail service in the year 2015 or 2016 on what is being referred to as the
initial operating segment (IOS). The IOS runs from downtown Santa Rosa on the north to the San
Rafael Civic Center on the south. It is unknown at this time when service would commence at the
North Santa Rosa station, though the station remains part of the SMART operating plan and financing.
The North Santa Rosa SMART station will be located on the south side of Guerneville Road and east
side of the SMART tracks. It will include a raised platform with shelter, benches, and ticket kiosks
between the mainline tracks and a rail siding. Access to the platform will be via Guerneville Road on the
north and a new prefabricated pedestrian/bicycle bridge over a drainage channel on the south. The
station will include a transit plaza for bus transfers as well as bicycle racks. The station will also include
350 commuter parking spaces.
April 18, 2012
Page 12
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic
volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level
of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or
breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS
designation.
The study intersections were analyzed for short-term conditions using methodologies published in the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains
methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of
delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Levels of Service for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are
unsignalized and have one or two approaches stop controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-Way StopControlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. This methodology determines a level of
service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle.
Results are presented for individual movements together with the weighted overall age delay for the
intersection.
The study intersections with stop signs on all approaches were analyzed using the “All-Way StopControlled” intersection methodology from the HCM. This methodology evaluates delay for each
approach based on turning movements, opposing and conflicting traffic volumes, and the number of
lanes. Average vehicle delay is computed for the intersection as a whole, and is then related to a Level
of Service.
The study intersections that are currently controlled by a traffic signal were evaluated using the
signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes,
green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and
pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in
this LOS methodology. For purposes of this study, delays were calculated using optimized signal timing.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 3.
April 18, 2012
Page 13
Table 3
Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS
Two-Way Stop-Controlled
All-Way Stop-Controlled
Signalized
A
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in
traffic are readily available for
drivers exiting the minor street.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Upon
stopping, drivers are immediately
able to proceed.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most
vehicles arrive during the green
phase, so do not stop at all.
B
Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in
traffic are somewhat less readily
available than with LOS A, but no
queuing occurs on the minor street.
Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Drivers
may wait for one or two vehicles to
clear the intersection before
proceeding from a stop.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A, but
many drivers still do not have to
stop.
C
Delay of 15 to 25 seconds.
Acceptable gaps in traffic are less
frequent, and drivers may approach
while another vehicle is already
waiting to exit the side street.
Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Drivers
will enter a queue of one or two
vehicles on the same approach, and
wait for vehicle to clear from one or
more approaches prior to entering
the intersection.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The
number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
D
Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There
are fewer acceptable gaps in traffic,
and drivers may enter a queue of
one or two vehicles on the side
street.
Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. Queues
of more than two vehicles are
encountered on one or more
approaches.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The
influence of congestion is noticeable,
and most vehicles have to stop.
E
Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few
acceptable gaps in traffic are
available, and longer queues may
form on the side street.
Delay of 35 t o 50 seconds. Longer
queues are encountered on more
than one approach to the
intersection.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if
not all, vehicles must stop and
drivers consider the delay excessive.
F
Delay of more than 50 seconds.
Drivers may wait for long periods
before there is an acceptable gap in
traffic for exiting the side streets,
creating long queues.
Drivers enter long queues on all
approaches.
Vehicles may wait through more
than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Traffic Operation Standards
The City of Santa Rosa's adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standard is contained in Santa Rosa General Plan
2035. Standard TD-1 states that the City will try to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D or better along
all major corridors. Exceptions to meeting this standard are allowed where attainment would result in
significant environmental degradation; where topography or environmental impacts make the
improvement impossible; or where attainment would ensure loss of an area's unique character.
Although the City’s standard does not specify criteria for intersections, for the purposes of this study a
minimum operation of LOS D for the overall operation of signalized intersections was applied for the
short-term conditions analysis.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic
volumes during the p.m. and Saturday midday peak periods. This condition does not include projectgenerated traffic volumes. Volume data was collected for the majority of the intersections in October
2011, though Steele Lane/County Center Drive-Illinois Avenue and Cleveland Avenue/Coddingtown
Drive were counted in February 2012. Counts during both time periods were taken while local schools
were in session.
April 18, 2012
Page 14
Intersection Levels of Service
Under existing conditions, all 13 study intersections are operating acceptably under the applied LOS
standard. A summary of the intersection level of service calculations is contained in Table 4. The
existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. Copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided
in Appendix B.
Table 4
Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions
PM Peak
MD Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
29.5
C
30.2
C
2. Guerneville Rd/W. Steele Lane
24.6
C
29.6
C
34.2
C
37.0
D
23.2
C
24.6
C
28.2
C
26.4
C
6. Steele Ln/Illinois Ave-County Center Dr
23.2
C
16.9
B
5.7
A
7.1
A
8.2
A
7.9
A
0.8
A
0.6
A
10.9
B
11.1
B
5.6
A
5.4
A
27.4
C
26.2
C
23.2
C
12.5
B
21.7
C
17.2
B
Eastbound Approach
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for
minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Project Description
The proposed Target Store is intended to be developed within areas currently occupied by the space
that most recently housed Gottschalks as well as a portion of the parking lot and some small stores
along the southern perimeter of the Coddingtown Mall. The project includes a 143,487 square foot
Target store with a grocery section. As part of the project, 46,754 square feet of space currently
occupied by small shops as well as the 154,877 anchor building will be demolished. It is understood that
approximately 95 percent of the small shop space (or 44,416 square feet) as well as about 30,000 square
feet of the anchor building were occupied during the time when existing count data were obtained,
resulting in the loss of 74,416 square feet of space that was generating trips when the traffic counts
were taken. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 1.
April 18, 2012
Page 15
9
(963){791}
(506){455}
{305}(397)
{19} (0)
{335}(438)
{137} (244)
{730}(1057)
101
{622}(958)
{490}(590)
{13}(19)
{20}(26)
13
(447) {289}
(1100){907}
10
(15) {16}
(421){478}
(297){176}
(31) {0}
(341){245}
(256){267}
(921){621}
(79) {61}
{134}(75)
{57}(41)
College Avenue
11
12
8
{13}(15)
{3} (8)
{22}(37)
13
10
{14} (11)
{162}(219)
LEGEND
North
Study Intersection
(xx) P.M. Peak Hour Volume
{xx} Weekend Midday Peak Hour Volume
Not to Scale
City of Santa Rosa
{70} (62)
{53} (36)
{225}(146)
(16) {14}
(44) {41}
(314){305}
{97}(263)
{9} (23)
{17} (25)
{214} (247)
{927}(1083)
{106} (283)
(26) {50}
(832){781}
(18) {9}
(12){15}
(10){6}
(4) {4}
{22}(32)
{86}(96)
{1} (2)
{87} (103)
{685}(1066)
{38} (39)
12
{33} (38)
{118}(153)
{76} (72)
11
(120){121}
(20) {163}
(371){353}
Frances Street
(119){205}
(451){421}
7
6
(8) {21}
(455){485}
8
ue
Aven
(1333){1223}
(452) {322}
{893}(1278)
{742} (593)
(23) {14}
(166){137}
(19) {17}
{300} (435)
{782}(1172)
9
ngs
Jenni
4
(475){269}
(22) {20}
(33) {44}
(367) {179}
(1162){885}
{719}(649)
{0} (0)
{350}(449)
Ed
{37} (14)
{695}(802)
{112}(105)
5
{85} (59)
{311}(298)
nue
Ave
s
d
war
{159} (140)
{972}(1062)
{58} (34)
{20} (24)
{359}(344)
Project
Site
(218) {254}
(1188){939}
(319) {365}
(18) {11}
(762){615}
(151){173}
{100}(123)
{370}(362)
7
Cleveland Avenue
r
Range Avenue
G
ue
3
2
(370){397}
(42) {0}
(370){190}
Steele Ln
1
lle
vi
e
n
6
(150){149}
(238){241}
(501){467}
5
Illinois Avenue
d
Roa
2
4
3
{142}(164)
{509}(661)
{145}(208)
{171}(235)
{162}(156)
{253}(142)
u
er nt
West Steele Lane
(20) {30}
(712){588}
(99) {117}
{81} (72)
{176}(155)
{222}(144)
(273){128}
(181){179}
(125){133}
y
ive
Dr
o
C
t
Cen
1
311sro.ai
4/12
Figure 3
Existing Traffic Volumes
Trip Generation
For purposes of estimating the number of new trips that the potential Projects could be expected to
generate, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, was used. This standard reference is used by jurisdictions
throughout the country, and is based on actual trip generation studies performed at numerous locations
in areas of various populations.
Land Use Categories
Because the proposed Target store will be part of a shopping center, the net increase in floor space
could reasonably be used to estimate the change in trip generation associated with the project.
However, to provide a more conservative estimate of the potential change in trip generation between
the loss of existing space in the shopping center and its replacement with a Target, the rates for a FreeStanding Discount Superstore were instead applied to the Target space to provide worst-case
conditions. Following are excerpts from Trip Generation describing land use categories used in the trip
generation estimate for this project.
Free-Standing Discount Superstore (Land Use 813) – The discount superstores in this category
are similar to the free-standing discount stores described in Land Use 815 with the exception
that they also contain a full-service grocery department under the same roof that shares
entrances and exits with the discount store area. The stores usually offer a variety of customer
services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. They typically maintain long store
hours seven days a week. The stores included in this land use are often the only ones on the
site, but they can also be found in mutual operation with a related or unrelated garden center
and/or service station. Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, page 1375
Shopping Center (Land Use 820) – A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial
establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. A shopping center’s
composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location and type of store. Shopping
centers also provide on-site parking facilities sufficient to serve their own demands. Many
shopping centers, in addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around
a mall, include output parcels (peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the
center adjacent to the streets and major access points). These buildings are typically drive-in
banks, retail stores, restaurants, or small offices. Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, page 1497
According to ITE, superstores have a higher average trip rate than discount stores during the a.m. peak,
and discount stores have a higher average rate than superstores during the p.m. peak. Trip Generation,
8th Edition, contains data from 92 additional trip generation studies of Free-Standing Discount
Superstores compared with the 7th Edition. This substantial increase in data further validates the
accuracy of the trip rates for the Free-Standing Discount Superstore (Land Use 813), which in previous
editions was a newly regarded land use type.
The Shopping Center land-use rates were applied to the small shops that are proposed to be
demolished as part of the project. Because the rates for a shopping center are based on formulas that
use the total square footage of the center, and the larger the space the lower the trip rate, the applied
rates were calculated using the total size of the shopping center rather than the space being eliminated.
Note that since the Gottschalk’s store was only partially occupied at the time when the counts were
taken, the adjustment made to the trip generation to account for its demolition reflects this existing use
in October 2011.
April 18, 2012
Page 17
Pass-by Trips
Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination
without a root diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street
that offers direct access to the generator. Therefore, these trips are drawn from existing traffic so are
not considered new trips. However, pass-by trips do result in additional turning movement volumes at
the project driveways.
Though there is no pass-by trip data for a Free-Standing Discount Superstore, pass-by reductions were
made based on “Free-Standing Discount Store” (LU #815), as the major difference between land uses is
the presence of a grocery section. Based on data contained in the Trip Generation Handbook, an ITE
Recommended Practice, 2nd Edition, Free-Standing Discount Superstores and Shopping Centers have
average pass-by rates of 17 to 21 percent for both the p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours
respectively. These assumptions were applied in both the Baseline and Future traffic analyses.
Diverted Linked Trips
Diverted linked trips are trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity
of the generator but that require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to
the site. These trips could be on highways or freeways adjacent to the generator, but without direct
access to the generator. Diverted linked trips add traffic to streets adjacent to a site, but may not add
traffic to the area’s major travel routes.
Using data from the Trip Generation Handbook for the Free-Standing Discount Superstore and Shopping
Center uses, pass-by plus diverted link percentages were evaluated for similar sized commercial projects
and relatively similar adjacent street traffic volumes. These data indicate that approximately 35 percent
of the trips during the weekday p.m. and weekend midday peak hours would be diverted from the
adjacent highway, US 101 in this case. Based on directional flow it was assumed that about half of this
diversion (17.5 percent each) would come from US 101 south and north. These assumptions were
applied in both the Baseline and Future traffic analyses by adding this portion of the project generated
vehicle trips to the access driveways, local access routes such as Steele Lane and Guerneville Road, and
the freeway on and off ramps; but not the mainline freeway.
Internal Capture
Internal capture is the reduction applicable to the vehicle trip generation for individual land uses within a
multi-use site to account for internal trips between land uses at the site. For example, when an
integrated land use development includes both commercial and residential uses, trips between the two
uses may occur on foot, thereby reducing the potential vehicle trips. The Trip Generation Handbook
provides a methodology for determining an internal capture rate for various combinations and sizes of
multi-use developments. Since there is not a residential component located within the Coddingtown
Mall no internal capture reduction was applied though there are likely to be trips to the Target store
that are linked to shopping at the Mall as well as planned future residential development on the
northwest corner of Cleveland Avenue/Edwards Avenue, just southeast of the shopping center site. By
not using any internal capture, the resulting analysis is more conservative.
Trip Generation Summary
Summaries of the Project’s anticipated trip generation for weekdays and Saturdays are shown in Table 5
and Table 6 respectively. The project, including demolition of the some currently occupied small shops
as well as the Gottschalk’s, a portion of which was occupied when the traffic counts were taken, is
expected to increase average weekday traffic by approximately 1,818 daily trips from existing levels,
April 18, 2012
Page 18
including 138 added trips during the p.m. peak hour. On Saturdays, the project is estimated to add an
average of 2,018 new trips per day, with 156 occurring during the midday peak hour.
Table 5
Weekday Trip Generation Summary (Existing plus Project Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Weekday
PM Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
Rate
Trips
In
Out
53.13
7,623
4.61
661
324
337
Target Store
143.487 ksf
Pass-by
-17%
-1,296
-112
-55
-57
Diverted Link
-35%
-2,668
-231
-113
-118
3,659
318
156
162
228
112
116
-489
-48
-24
-24
Subtotal
1,841
180
88
92
1,818
138
68
70
Subtotal
Shopping Center
74.416 ksf
Pass-by
31.30
-21%
2,330
3.07
Note: ksf = thousand square feet
Table 6
Saturday Trip Generation Summary (Existing plus Project Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Saturday
Midday Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
Rate
Trips
In
Out
64.07
9,193
5.64
809
405
404
Target Store
143.487 ksf
Pass-by
-17%
-1,563
-138
-69
-69
Diverted Link
-35%
-3,218
-283
-142
-141
4,413
388
194
194
294
153
141
-637
-62
-32
-30
Subtotal
2,395
232
121
111
2,018
156
73
83
Subtotal
Shopping Center
Pass-by
74.416 ksf
-21%
40.75
3,032
3.95
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on data contained in the
Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan, which used the County of Sonoma’s
SCTM/07 model. Trip distribution assumptions for the Station Area Plan were based on a “Select
Zone” model run for a traffic analysis zone within the study area that contained primarily non-residential
April 18, 2012
Page 19
land uses. The model-generated distribution of trips was combined with knowledge of the roadway
network and consideration of current traffic patterns to determine the anticipated distribution of traffic
associated with the proposed Target store. The distribution assumptions applied to the new trips and
resulting added trips are shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route
Percent
Weekday
Saturday
Daily
Trips
PM
Trips
Daily
Trips
MD
Trips
US 101 – North
23%
418
32
464
36
US 101 – South
25%
454
35
504
39
Guerneville Rd – West
14%
254
19
282
21
Steele Ln – East
11%
200
15
222
17
Range Ave – North
5%
91
7
101
8
Cleveland Ave – North
5%
91
7
101
8
Cleveland Ave – South
3%
55
4
61
5
County Center Dr – North
3%
55
4
61
5
Illinois Ave – South
2%
36
3
40
3
College Ave – West
4%
73
5
81
6
College Ave – East
5%
91
7
101
8
100%
1,818
138
2,018
156
TOTAL
Intersection Operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, the 13 study intersections are
expected to operate acceptably. Net new trips generated by the project are shown in Figure 4.
Diverted link trips are shown in Figure 5, and pass-by trips in Figure 6. A summary of the Existing plus
Project intersection level of service calculations is contained in Table 8.
April 18, 2012
Page 20
ue
Aven
{47}(39)
{6} (5)
10
{2}(2)
{9}(8)
{2}(1)
9
{0}(0)
{4}(4)
{4}(3)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(3){4}
101
{4}(4)
{4}(4)
College Avenue
11
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
10
12
13
{0}(0)
{6}(5)
LEGEND
North
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(7){8}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
13
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(7){8}
(7){7}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{7}(7)
{0}(0)
{2}(2)
{0}(0)
(3){3}
(2){2}
(7){8}
{3}(3)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(7){7}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
12
11
(0){0}
(7){8}
(0){0}
8
(0){0}
(5){6}
(0){0}
Frances Street
(38){41}
(0) {0}
7
6
{5}(5)
{7}(7)
8
ngs
Jenni
{1}(1)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(3){4}
(0){0}
{19}(16)
{13}(11)
9
(24){26}
(0) {0}
{32}(27)
{17}(14)
(0) {0}
(11){12}
(2){2}
(0){0}
(0){0}
Ed
(0){0}
(5){6}
(0){0}
4
5
{15}(14)
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
nue
Ave
s
d
war
{0}(0)
{6}(5)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{6}(5)
{0}(0)
(0) {0}
(5) {6}
(35){37}
{5}(5)
{0}(0)
Project
Site
3
(16){17}
(0) {0}
(0) {0}
7
Cleveland Avenue
r
Range Avenue
G
ue
2
{0}(0)
{5}(5)
{0}(0)
Steele Ln
1
lle
vi
e
n
6
{0} (0)
{4} (4)
{42}(36)
5
Illinois Avenue
d
Roa
2
4
3
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
u
er nt
West Steele Lane
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
{10}(10)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(5){6}
{12}(10)
{4} (4)
{6} (5)
y
ive
Dr
o
C
t
Cen
(0){0}
(3){4}
(0){0}
1
Study Intersection
Not to Scale
City of Santa Rosa
311sro.ai
4/12
Figure 4
Net New Project Trips
ive
Dr
o
C
t
Cen
y
u
er nt
5
{71}(59)
{0} (0)
9
{7}(6)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(57){71}
(0) {0}
(0) {0}
(0) {0}
(12){14}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(6){7}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(6){7}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
101
{0} (0)
{21}(18)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
13
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
8
College Avenue
11
12
10
13
{0}(0)
{7}(6)
LEGEND
North
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{2}(2)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{120}(100)
{7} (6)
10
12
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
11
(0) {0}
(0) {0}
(18){21}
Frances Street
(107){135}
(0) {0}
7
{2}(2)
{5}(4)
8
ue
Aven
(0){0}
(6){7}
(0){0}
9
ngs
Jenni
{71}(59)
{49}(41)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0) {0}
(12){14}
Ed
(51){64}
(0) {0}
{64}(51)
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
nue
Ave
s
d
war
4
5
{3}(2)
{0}(0)
Project
Site
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0) {0}
(0) {0}
(107){120}
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
{135}(100)
7
3
{0}(0)
{5}(4)
r
Cleveland Avenue
G
ue
Range Avenue
1
lle
vi
e
n
6
Steele Ln
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
2
4
3
d
Roa
Illinois Avenue
West Steele Lane
Study Intersection
Not to Scale
City of Santa Rosa
311sro.ai
4/12
Figure 5
Diverted Traffic Volumes
Ed
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0)0}
(0){0}
6
{12}(10)
{6} (5)
10
{0}(0)
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
9
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
101
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
College Avenue
11
10
12
13
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
LEGEND
North
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
13
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
12
11
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
8
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
Frances Street
(14){16}
(-4) {-6}
7
{4} (3)
{-4}(-3)
8
ue
Aven
(0){0}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
5
9
ngs
Jenni
4
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0} (0)
nue
Ave
s
d
war
{0} (0)
{-7}(-6)
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
{-7}(-6)
{0} (0)
(0) {0}
(-10){-10}
(10) {10}
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
Project
Site
3
(0) {0}
(-10){-10}
(0) {0}
Study Intersection
Not to Scale
City of Santa Rosa
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
7
Cleveland Avenue
r
Range Avenue
G
ue
2
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
Steele Ln
1
lle
vi
e
n
6
{0}(0)
{0}(0)
{8}(7)
5
Illinois Avenue
d
Roa
2
4
3
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
u
er nt
West Steele Lane
{0} (0)
{-7}(-6)
{7} (6)
(0) {0}
(-10){-10}
(0) {0}
{11}(10)
{0} (0)
{0} (0)
y
ive
Dr
o
C
t
Cen
(0){0}
(0){0}
(0){0}
1
311sro.ai
4/12
Figure 6
Pass-by Traffic Volumes
Table 8
Summary of Existing and Existing plus Project
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions
PM Peak
MD Peak
PM Peak
MD Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
29.5
C
30.2
C
29.0
C
31.2
C
2. Guerneville Rd/W Steele Lane
24.6
C
29.6
C
25.3
C
29.8
C
34.2
C
37.0
D
43.0
D
47.1
D
23.2
C
24.6
C
25.1
C
26.5
C
28.2
C
26.4
C
29.9
C
28.0
C
6. Steele Ln/Illinois-County Center
23.2
C
16.9
B
22.6
C
16.8
B
5.7
A
7.1
A
18.3
B
18.5
B
8.2
A
7.9
A
8.3
A
8.0
A
0.8
A
0.6
A
0.8
A
0.6
A
10.9
B
11.1
B
11.0
B
11.2
B
5.6
A
5.4
A
11.1
B
8.7
A
27.4
C
26.2
C
30.0
C
28.3
C
23.2
C
12.5
B
22.0
C
18.4
B
21.7
C
17.2
B
21.6
C
18.4
B
Eastbound Approach
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor
approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
It should be noted that with the addition of project-related traffic volumes, average delay at the
intersections of Guerneville Road/Range Avenue, West Steele Lane/Illinois Avenue-County Center
Drive, College Avenue/US 101 Southbound Ramps, and College Avenue/US 101 Northbound Ramps
decreases during the p.m. peak hour. This is also true for the intersection of West Steele Lane/Illinois
Avenue-County Center Drive during the weekend midday peak hour. While this is counter-intuitive,
this condition occurs when a project adds trips to movements that are currently underutilized or have
delays that are below the intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and
lower overall average delay. The conclusion could incorrectly be drawn that the project actually
improves operation based on this data alone; however, it is more appropriate to conclude that the
project trips are expected to make use of excess capacity, so drivers will experience little, if any, change
in conditions as a result of the project.
Finding: The 13 study intersections would be expected to continue operating acceptably at the same
levels of service upon the addition of project-generated traffic. Impacts are similarly expected to be
imperceptible at the intersections of Edwards Avenue with Range Avenue and Cleveland Avenue based
on the results indicated for the Jennings Avenue intersections.
April 18, 2012
Page 24
Future Conditions
Planned Improvements
The following roadway improvements are listed in the General Plan and the City of Santa Rosa’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and were assumed to be complete in the evaluation of the Future
conditions analysis.
•
•
•
College Avenue Widening – Cleveland Avenue to Morgan Street (Project #1153, funded for year
2013) – Widen College Avenue to provide three westbound through lanes plus bicycle lanes in both
directions
Install single lane roundabout at Range Avenue/Jennings Avenue
Guerneville Road-Steele Lane Corridor Improvements:
o Extend the right turn lane on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to a length of 250 feet
o At the intersection of Steele Lane/Cleveland Avenue, reallocate the lanes on the northbound
approach to Steele Lane to include separate left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes; on the
southbound approach add a 100-foot long right turn lane and reallocate the remaining lanes to
provide one through and two left-turn lanes; modify the intersection phasing to provide rightturn overlaps and protected left-turn phasing on both Cleveland Avenue approaches
Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate used to evaluate Existing plus Project conditions included a deduction for
only that portion of the space to be demolished that was occupied and generating trips at the time when
traffic counts were taken. In evaluating Future conditions, the General Plan EIR analysis included trips
associated with build-out of (i.e. full occupation of the existing space at) Coddingtown Mall. As shown in
Table 9 and Table 10, with all of the space to be eliminated by the project taken into account, the
project is expected to result in a net decrease in trips during both the weekday evening peak hour and
Saturday midday peak hour compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Table 9
Weekday Trip Generation Summary (Future Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Weekday
Rate
Trips
In
Out
318
156
162
618
303
315
-1,326
-130
-64
-66
Subtotal (Net New Trips)
4,986
488
239
249
Net New Trips (Total for Project)
-1,327
-171
-84
-87
Target Store
Trips
PM Peak Hour
Rate
3,659
All Demolished Space
Shopping Center
201.631 ksf
Pass by
-21%
31.30
6,312
3.07
April 18, 2012
Page 25
Table 10
Saturday Trip Generation Summary (Future Conditions)
Land Use
Size
Saturday
Rate
Trips
In
Out
388
194
194
797
414
383
1,725
-167
-87
-80
Subtotal
6,491
630
327
303
Net New Trips (Total for Project)
-2,078
-242
-133
-109
Target Store
Trips
Midday Peak Hour
Rate
4,413
All Demolished Space
Shopping Center
201.631 ksf
Pass by
-21%
40.75
8,216
3.95
Because the project results in fewer trips under future conditions than would be expected with reoccupation of the existing shopping center space, it can be concluded that the project will have a
beneficial contribution tofuture operation as reported in the Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 Draft
Environmental Impact Report, March 2009.
Finding: The project results in fewer trips than would be expected to occur with re-occupation of the
existing store space on the site. The project therefore has a beneficial impact on future traffic
operation because it results in decreased anticipated future volumes.
Potential Future Operation with North San Rosa Station Area Plan
o
Because the study area for this analysis is contained within the study area used for the Traffic
Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan, December 9, 2011, the project’s potential
to affect the results presented in this report were also evaluated. As noted, the project results
in a net decrease in trips compared to re-occupation of the existing space, so the Station Area
traffic study’s conclusion that acceptable operation can be achieved during the weekday evening
peak hour would be unchanged by the project as proposed. However, since under Existing plus
Project conditions some intersections experienced worse operation during the weekend midday
peak hour than the p.m. peak hour, further analysis was performed to determine if acceptable
operation would be expected with the probable growth in traffic volumes and planned future
improvements.
The Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan contains a number of recommendations
for roadway improvements as well as changes that emphasize other modes of travel to reduce reliance
on auto for all travel. Because these improvements are necessary to achieve acceptable operation
under Future weekday p.m. peak hour conditions, they were assumed to be complete in preparing the
evaluation of Future operation during the Saturday midday peak hour. Note that some of these are
programmatic in nature, while others are for specific physical improvements.
•
Define new standards for “Complete Street” corridors, including Range Avenue-Frances Street;
common elements of the Complete Streets include:
o Emphasis on multi-modal circulation
o Single 11-foot wide vehicular travel lanes in each direction, 5- to 6-foot wide bicycle lanes, and
11-foot wide sidewalk/planter areas with landscaping (one exception to the single vehicular
through lanes would be on Range Avenue between a point about 200 feet north of West Steele
Lane and Guerneville Road where two southbound lanes would be needed to provide capacity)
April 18, 2012
Page 26
12-foot wide center turn lane or median in some locations (raised medians, when used, would
include 2-foot offsets from adjacent travel lanes)
Implement a grid pattern of streets
o Complete two new north-south streets in the area south of Coddingtown Mall between the
Range-Frances corridor and Cleveland Avenue in order to create a grid network
Guerneville Road-Steele Lane Corridor Improvements
o Construct a 100-foot long right-turn lane on westbound Steele Lane at the US 101 northbound
ramps intersection
Cleveland Avenue Improvements
o Consider adding landscaped medians between College Avenue and Coddingtown Mall, and
consider eliminating one southbound vehicle lane on between Coddingtown Mall and Frances
Street to provide space for bicycle lanes or striped shoulders on both sides of the street
o
•
•
•
Projected future traffic volumes for the weekday p.m. peak hour and the associated operational results
were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan . These volumes
were used to evaluate operation at the 13 study intersections as a baseline against which to compare
weekend operation. It should be noted that the Station Area traffic study used a corridor Level of
Service methodology, which is consistent with the City’s Level of Service standard and operational
results presented in the General Plan DEIR. However, because the Station Area traffic study included a
larger study area, the corridors studied were considerably longer than the short segments connecting
the study intersections for this analysis, so a direct comparison was not reasonable. The corridor
methodology is based on running time for an entire corridor, and as a result, some intersections are
expected to operate at lower Levels of Service (LOS E or F), but because the remainder of the corridor
is operating more smoothly, the overall operation is considered acceptable. The LOS results obtained
for individual intersections were therefore not used to evaluate this scenario directly as some are below
the LOS D standard; instead they were used as a point of comparison for the Saturday midday peak
hour, assuming that if the intersections are all operating at lower delays on Saturdays than during the
weekday p.m. peak, the corridors will be operating as well as or better than projected for the p.m. peak
hour.
A factor was determined for the increase in traffic during the Saturday midday peak hour by comparing
the trip generations for the land uses in the Station Area Plan analysis for the Saturday midday peak
hour and the p.m. peak hour. Total trips for each peak hour were determined based on the projected
land uses and densities, and the ratio of these future trips used together with the difference between
existing and future volumes for the p.m. peak hour to escalate current Saturday midday peak hour
volumes to future volumes. A copy of the spreadsheet showing the trip generation data and resulting
growth factors for each intersection is provided in Appendix C.
The 13 study intersections were analyzed under both projected p.m. peak hour and Saturday midday
peak hour traffic volumes. From this analysis, it was determined that all 13 study intersections are
expected to operate better under Saturday peak hour traffic volumes than under p.m. peak hour traffic
volumes. It is therefore concluded that traffic operation with weekend midday peak hour traffic
volumes will be as good as or better than weekday p.m. peak hour operation, which was determined to
be acceptable in the Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan with implementation of
improvements identified in the traffic study.
Finding: The analysis of Future Conditions as reported in the Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa
Station Area Plan indicates that acceptable operation of the corridors on which the study intersections
are located can be expected with implementation of planned and recommended improvements. The
project will contribute to improved operation by generating fewer trips than would have occurred if the
existing development was re-occupied.
April 18, 2012
Page 27
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian
Existing sidewalks, curb ramps and marked crosswalks are provided at intersections surrounding the
project site. Sidewalks also exist along the perimeter of existing buildings on the Coddingtown Shopping
Center site and would be extended to provide full connectivity of pedestrian facilities serving the
proposed new Target building and the existing shopping center.
Finding: Existing and proposed pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project are expected to
adequately serve the project.
Bicycle
A variety of existing bikeways are provided in the vicinity of the project facilitating both north-south and
east-west access. Further, a regional Class I multi-use pathway is planned along the SMART Rail, a
bicycle and pedestrian bridge over US 101, and several local bikeways are planned along adjacent streets
and off-street corridors, all of which will increase access options for bicyclists in the future.
The preferred alignment for the bicycle and pedestrian bridge over US 101, which would connect Elliot
Avenue on the east side of US 101 to Coddingtown on west side, consists of a 14-foot wide “commuter
linkage” that runs directly through the Coddingtown Mall parking lot south of the proposed Target
store.
Finding: Existing and planned bikeways in the vicinity of the proposed project will provide a variety of
access options for bicyclists traveling to and from the project site.
Transit
The project is located within a short walking distance of the transit hub at Coddingtown, which is served
by CityBus Routes 7, 10, 11 and 15, so the site is accessible via transit. It is anticipated that future
transit demand generated by the project could be accommodated by the existing transit routes as well
as the SMART train. The Northwest Santa Rosa Station will be located about one-half mile from the
Target store, so could serve both employees and customers.
Finding: Existing and planned future transit services are expected to adequately serve the project site.
April 18, 2012
Page 28
Access and Circulation
Site Access
Access to the project site will be via existing driveways on Range Avenue, Guerneville Road, Cleveland
Avenue, and Edwards Avenue. The project site is located in the middle of the shopping center site, and
does not affect any existing driveways. Since no changes are anticipated, the project has no impact on
the adequacy of existing site accesses. Further, since the project results in a lower trip generating
potential than would be expected with re-occupation of the existing shopping center space, operation of
the existing driveways will be positively impacted by the reduced traffic demand.
On-Site Circulation
The proposed Target building will be located in an area currently occupied by a large, anchor tenant
building, but because of its smaller footprint, the project will result in a change to the parking pattern
just south of the building. The existing east-west parking aisles will be replaced with north-south aisles,
so will match the pattern of the parking fields surrounding this area. This change will improve
circulation through the parking lot as all of the parking aisles in the area south of the shopping center
will be in the same direction.
No other changes to the site’s existing circulation patterns are expected as a result of the project.
Finding: The project results in no changes to site access, and improves site circulation by re-orienting
the parking field south of the project building to match the fields surrounding it.
April 18, 2012
Page 29
Parking
Adequacy of the parking supply for the project was evaluated based on the Santa Rosa City Code, Title
20: Zoning Ordinance; Section 20-36.040, which states that, “each principally or conditionally permitted
use shall provide at least the minimum number of off-street automobile parking spaces.” Because the
project will be part of a larger development that shares parking with the proposed use, the parking
demand was calculated for the entire Coddingtown site.
The City requires one parking space for each 250 square feet of general retail and office development.
Evaluating these uses individually and assuming full capacity of each use, 3,424 spaces are required for
the combined total of 825,363 square feet of retail space and 30,520 square feet of office space. The
site plan shows a total of 3,323 proposed parking spaces, which is deficient by 101 parking spaces based
on application of City standards.
Since direct application of the City’s parking requirements indicates a deficiency, further analysis was
performed to determine the potential for parking to be shared by the existing and proposed uses and
the resulting peak parking demand.
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) publication Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2005, includes state-of-thepractice methodologies for determining parking demand in an environment where different types of uses
share a common parking facility or area. The ULI shared parking methodology focuses heavily on
temporal data, determining when the overall peak demand for various land uses would occur, including
what time of day, whether it is a weekday or weekend, and what month of the year. The recommended
parking supply is then tied to that maximum demand period. The base input data includes the proposed
mix of land uses and quantities of each type of use. The methodology then requires the input of “mode
adjustment” and “non-captive ratio” values.
Mode adjustments are applied to the default parking demand ratios, which are based on auto-oriented
suburban developments, to reflect conditions where auto ownership is expected to be lower, transit
usage higher, and other non-automobile modes of travel such as walking and bicycling higher. Several
elements need to be considered when determining vehicle ownership trends for transit-oriented urban
areas such as that envisioned for the Station Area surrounding the project site. A Caltrans-funded study
(Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California, 2005, Lund, Cervero, and Willson)
indicates that vehicle ownership at California TODs has been found to decrease over time as density
and transit service increase. The July 2006 publication MTC’s Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented
Development Policy: Interim Evaluation indicates that the average automobile ownership at transit station
area developments in California is 1.4 vehicles per household. This is 26 percent lower than the 1.9
vehicles per household reported for the central Sonoma County area in the 2005 Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) data summary publication Vehicle Ownership Forecasts for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 1990-2030 (November 2005). Over time as the study area experiences increasing
TOD activity, it is expected that vehicle ownership (and the total number of vehicles owned per
household) will decrease and the number of trips made by walking or bicycling will increase.
Separate mode adjustment factors can also be made for employees within the study area. Travel mode
data for Santa Rosa employees obtained from the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP)
“Journey to Work” tabulations indicate that 83 percent of all home-to-work trips in Santa Rosa are
completed in single-passenger private autos, 12 percent regularly carpool, 2 percent by transit, and 3
percent walk or bicycle. These statistics are very similar to more recent data for Sonoma County
overall in the year 2006, as shown in MTC’s Data Summary publication Travel Forecasts for the San
Francisco Bay Area: 2009 Regional Transportation Plan: Vision 2035 Analysis (November 2007). This data
April 18, 2012
Page 30
was used to develop appropriate automobile usage assumptions when adjusting employee travel modes
in Santa Rosa.
The non-captive ratio adjustments in the Shared Parking methodology are based on the concept of a
“captive market,” which refers to customers who visit more than one establishment or type of land use
without making a separate trip, or in this case, parking their vehicle more than once. This can also apply
to employees in a core environment who park in a garage or at work, but visit nearby businesses during
breaks or at lunchtime.
Using the methodology established by ULI, it was determined that the existing and proposed uses at the
would be expected to generate a peak shared parking demand of 3,183 parking spaces at 2:00 p.m.
during a weekend day in December at the Coddingtown Mall. The projected peak parking demand on
weekdays is 2,937 parking spaces at 2:00 p.m. in December. The proposed parking supply of 3,323
spaces would therefore be sufficient during weekday and weekend peak conditions. Calculations
indicating the ULI shared parking demand rates for both weekdays and weekends are included in
Appendix D.
Finding: The proposed parking supply of 3,323 spaces does not meet the City parking requirements of
3,424 parking spaces, but does meet ULI’s projected shared peak parking demand of 3,183 parking
spaces.
Recommendation: In order to avoid having more parking at the site than is needed, even under
anticipated peak conditions, it is recommended that the City accept the shared parking analysis and
proposed parking supply through approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
April 18, 2012
Page 31
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
•
Compared to Existing conditions with partial occupation of the spaces slated for demolition, the
proposed project is expected to result in a net increase of 1,818 weekday vehicle trips, which
includes 138 net new trips during the p.m. peak hour, and a net increase of 2,018 weekend vehicle
trips, which includes 156 net new trips during the weekend midday peak hour.
•
Demolition of the Gottschalk’s anchor building and some existing space on the south side of the
mall and replacing it with a Target Store having less square footage than what is being replaced is
expected to result in a net decrease of 1,327 weekday vehicle trips, including 171 fewer trips during
the p.m. peak hour, and a net decrease of 2,078 weekend vehicle trips, with 242 fewer trips during
the weekend midday peak hour.
•
All 13 of the study intersections are currently operating acceptably and are expected to continue
operating acceptably with the addition of trips from the proposed project.
•
With two exceptions, the study intersections are experiencing collisions at lower-than-average
rates. Above average rates were experienced during the study period at Guerneville Road/Range
Avenue and Steele Lane/US 101 North Ramps. The incidence of crashes at the Steele Lane/US 101
North Ramps intersection has decreased since completion of the US 101 widening project, so this
increased capacity appears to have had a positive effect on safety.
•
Under Future Conditions, as modeled for the Station Area Specific Plan DEIR, the street network in
the study area is expected to continue operating acceptably during the p.m. peak hour. Analysis
performed indicates that acceptable operating conditions for the corridors surrounding the site will
also be maintained during the weekend midday peak hour.
•
Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of and throughout the project site are expected to adequately
serve the project.
•
A number of existing and planned bicycle facilities are available near the project site; however, the
proposed project appears to be inconsistent with the Station Area Plan as it does not show the
“commuter linkage” segment of the bicycle and pedestrian bridge project.
•
Existing transit routes are within an acceptable walking distance of the project.
•
No changes to site access are proposed. Minor changes to the parking field orientation south of the
project site are expected to improve site circulation.
•
Direct application of the City of Santa Rosa’s parking standards results in a requirement for 3,424space parking requirement. The proposed supply of 3,323 spaces would fall short of this by 101
spaces. Application of the methodology established in ULI’s shared parking model results in a peak
parking demand of 3,183 spaces, which is fewer spaces than are proposed. Based on the shared
parking analysis, it appears that the parking supply as proposed is adequate.
Recommendations
•
It is recommended that the City accept the shared parking analysis and allow the parking supply as
proposed through approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
April 18, 2012
Page 32
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge:
Transportation Planner:
Assistant Engineer:
Technician/Graphics:
Editing/Formatting:
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE,
Chris Helmer
Sam Lam, EIT
Deborah J. Mizell
Angela McCoy
References
2007 Collision Data on California State Highways (road miles, travel, collisions, collision rates), California
Department of Transportation, 2007
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy: Interim Evaluation, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, 2006
Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Santa Rosa, 2010
Santa Rosa City Code, Quality Code Publishing, 2012
Santa Rosa CityBus, http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/transit/CityBus/maps_schedules/
Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan, City of Santa Rosa, 2007
Santa Rosa General Plan 2035, City of Santa Rosa, 2009
Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, Urban Land Institute, 2005
Sonoma County Transit, http://www.sctransit.com/SchedulesMaps.aspx
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2006-2010
Traffic Impact Study for the North Santa Rosa Station Area Plan, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation,
Inc., 2011
Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California, 2005, Lund, Cervero, and Willson
Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2009 Regional Transportation Plan: Vision 2035 Analysis,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2007
Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice, 2nd Edition, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 2004
Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008
United States Census 2000, United States Census Bureau, 2000
Vehicle Ownership Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area: 1990-2030, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, 2005
SRO311
April 18, 2012
Page 33
Appendix A
Collision Rate Spreadsheets
April 2012
INTERSECTION COLLISION RATE CALCULATIONS
Coddingtown Mall Redevelopment Project
Intersection #
1:
Guerneville Road & Range Avenue
Date of Count: Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Number of Collisions:
Number of Injuries:
Number of Fatalities:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
19
7
1
29,800
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signal
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
NUMBER OF COLLISIONS x 1 MILLION
ADT x 365 DAYS PER YEAR x NUMBER OF YEARS
29,800
19
x
Collision Rate
0.58 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
5.3%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
36.8%
43.9%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2007 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Intersection #
2:
Guerneville Road & Steele Lane
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
10
6
0
24,700
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Intersection Type: Four-legged
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
24,700
10
x
Collision Rate
0.37 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
60.0%
43.9%
4/2/2012
Page 1 of 7
Intersection #
3:
Guerneville Road & Cleveland Avenue
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
18
13
0
42,200
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
42,200
18
x
Collision Rate
0.39 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
72.2%
43.9%
Intersection #
4:
Steele Lane & US 101 South Ramps
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
16
3
0
44,400
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
44,400
16
x
Collision Rate
0.33 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
18.8%
43.9%
4/2/2012
Page 2 of 7
Intersection #
5:
Steele Lane & US 101 North Ramps
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
25
7
0
42,300
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
42,300
25
x
Collision Rate
0.54 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
28.0%
43.9%
Intersection #
6:
West Steele Lane & County Center Drive-Illinois Avenue
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
8
4
0
33,200
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
33,200
8
x
Collision Rate
0.22 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
50.0%
43.9%
4/2/2012
Page 3 of 7
Intersection #
7:
Cleveland Avenue & Coddingtown Driveway
Date of Count: Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
0
0
0
10,700
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Intersection Type: Tee
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
10,700
0
x
Collision Rate
0.00 c/mve
0.28 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
0.0%
43.3%
Intersection #
8:
Range Avenue & Jennings Avenue
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
1
0
0
4,200
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Control Type: Stop and Yield Signs
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
4,200
1
x
Collision Rate
0.22 c/mve
0.22 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.7%
3
Injury Rate
0.0%
42.2%
4/2/2012
Page 4 of 7
Intersection #
9:
Cleveland Avenue & Jennings Avenue
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
1
1
0
8,500
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Control Type: Stop and Yield Signs
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
8,500
1
x
Collision Rate
0.11 c/mve
0.14 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.8%
3
Injury Rate
100.0%
42.4%
Intersection #
10:
Cleveland Avenue & Frances Street
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
3
2
0
11,800
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
11,800
3
x
Collision Rate
0.23 c/mve
0.28 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
66.7%
43.3%
4/2/2012
Page 5 of 7
Intersection #
11:
College Avenue & Cleveland Avenue
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
12
7
0
34,200
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
34,200
12
x
Collision Rate
0.32 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
58.3%
43.9%
Intersection #
12:
College Avenue & US 101 South Ramps
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
8
1
0
37,000
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
37,000
8
x
Collision Rate
0.20 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
12.5%
43.9%
4/2/2012
Page 6 of 7
Intersection #
13:
College Avenue & US 101 North Ramps
Number of Injuries:
ADT:
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years:
12
3
0
36,800
January 1, 2008
December 31, 2010
3
Area: Urban
collision rate =
collision rate =
Study Intersection
Statewide Average*
36,800
12
x
Collision Rate
0.30 c/mve
0.43 c/mve
x
365
1,000,000
x
Fatality Rate
0.0%
0.4%
3
Injury Rate
25.0%
43.9%
4/2/2012
Page 7 of 7
Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
April 2012
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Range Avenue & Guerneville Road
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
164
1900
12
208
1900
12
99
1900
11
235
1900
11
125
1900
10
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1541
0.95
1541
1.00
235
0
181
181
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.91
1.00
3157
1.00
3157
1.00
181
240
214
273
1900
14
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
99
0
99
156
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.97
1.00
0.94
0.99
2941
0.99
2941
1.00
156
90
262
142
1900
11
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2.7
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.85
1.00
1484
1.00
1484
1.00
208
31
177
24
2
2%
Perm
712
1900
12
2%
3.2
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3482
1.00
3482
1.00
712
1
731
20
1900
15
3.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1752
0.95
1752
1.00
164
0
164
661
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3504
1.00
3504
1.00
661
0
661
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
19.9
19.8
0.17
3.1
2.0
289
c0.09
56.7
56.0
0.47
3.7
2.0
1635
0.19
11.0
10.3
0.09
3.7
2.0
145
c0.06
49.0
48.9
0.41
3.1
2.0
1419
c0.21
23.9
23.2
0.19
3.7
2.0
298
c0.12
0.57
46.2
1.00
1.5
47.7
D
0.40
21.0
1.00
0.7
21.8
C
25.4
C
0.68
53.3
1.13
9.7
69.8
E
0.52
26.7
0.70
1.3
19.8
B
25.8
C
0.61
44.2
1.00
2.4
46.6
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
Coddingtown Target
PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions - No Project
2
56.7
57.7
0.48
3.7
2.0
714
0.12
0.25
18.4
1.00
0.8
19.2
B
29.5
0.58
120.0
82.3%
15
1.00
20
0
0
48
2
2%
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
1.00
142
0
0
48
2
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1635
0.95
1635
1.00
125
0
125
12
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
23.9
23.2
0.19
3.7
2.0
569
0.09
13.6
12.9
0.11
3.7
2.0
176
c0.08
13.6
12.9
0.11
3.7
2.0
339
0.07
0.46
42.9
1.00
0.2
43.1
D
44.3
D
0.71
51.7
0.72
10.4
47.8
D
0.63
51.3
0.40
2.7
23.4
C
28.7
C
1.00
273
0
0
2
2%
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
142
1900
12
145
1900
12
117
1900
11
171
1900
11
133
1900
10
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1541
0.95
1541
1.00
171
0
154
179
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.94
1.00
3263
1.00
3263
1.00
179
114
193
128
1900
14
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
117
0
117
162
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.96
1.00
0.91
1.00
2835
1.00
2835
1.00
162
206
226
253
1900
11
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2.7
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.85
1.00
1484
1.00
1484
1.00
145
28
117
24
2
2%
Perm
588
1900
12
2%
3.2
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
3466
1.00
3466
1.00
588
2
616
30
1900
15
3.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1752
0.95
1752
1.00
142
0
142
509
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3504
1.00
3504
1.00
509
0
509
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
18.9
18.8
0.16
3.1
2.0
274
c0.08
55.3
54.6
0.46
3.7
2.0
1594
0.15
12.6
11.9
0.10
3.7
2.0
168
c0.07
50.2
50.1
0.42
3.1
2.0
1447
c0.18
23.2
22.5
0.19
3.7
2.0
289
c0.10
0.52
46.4
1.00
0.7
47.1
D
0.32
20.9
1.00
0.5
21.4
C
25.5
C
0.70
52.3
0.96
9.5
59.6
E
0.43
24.8
0.62
0.9
16.3
B
23.2
C
0.53
44.0
1.00
0.9
45.0
D
C
16.4
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
2
55.3
56.3
0.47
3.7
2.0
696
0.08
0.17
18.4
1.00
0.5
18.9
B
30.2
0.53
120.0
76.7%
15
Coddingtown Target
Wknd Midday Peak Hour Existing Conditions - No Project
1.00
30
0
0
48
2
2%
1.00
253
0
0
48
2
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1635
0.95
1635
1.00
133
0
133
12
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
23.2
22.5
0.19
3.7
2.0
532
0.08
14.1
13.4
0.11
3.7
2.0
183
c0.08
14.1
13.4
0.11
3.7
2.0
364
0.06
0.43
43.0
1.00
0.2
43.2
D
43.7
D
0.73
51.5
0.70
11.2
47.3
D
0.53
50.3
0.51
0.7
26.2
C
32.6
C
1.00
128
0
0
2
2%
C
16.4
D
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
2: Coddingtown Mall/Steele Way & Guerneville Road
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
14
1900
11
802
1900
14
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3737
1.00
3737
1.00
802
0
802
105
1900
14
151
1900
10
18
1900
15
62
1900
10
314
1900
12
1.00
18
0
0
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1553
0.95
1553
1.00
62
0
48
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1664
0.95
1664
1.00
314
0
179
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
2
8
2
68.6
76.8
67.9
75.4
0.57
0.63
3.7
3.0
4.0
2.0
2115
1051
c0.21
0.00
0.04
0.38
0.08
14.4
8.7
0.55
0.31
0.5
0.0
8.4
2.7
A
A
8.4
A
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
11.0
10.3
0.09
3.7
3.0
272
c0.05
77.3
76.6
0.64
3.7
4.0
2229
0.22
8.2
7.5
0.06
3.0
2.0
97
0.03
8.2
7.5
0.06
3.0
2.0
101
c0.03
0.56
52.7
0.91
1.6
49.6
D
0.35
10.1
1.69
0.3
17.3
B
22.6
C
0.49
54.4
1.00
1.4
55.9
E
0.50
54.4
1.00
1.4
55.8
E
50.2
D
4.4
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.85
1.00
1444
1.00
1444
1.00
146
82
64
12
2%
pm+ov
1
8
19.2
17.8
0.15
3.7
3.0
214
0.03
0.02
0.30
45.5
1.00
0.8
46.3
D
44
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1688
0.96
1688
1.00
44
0
179
16
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
151
0
151
36
1900
10
2%
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1613
0.99
1613
1.00
36
0
50
146
1900
10
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1672
1.00
1672
1.00
105
25
80
762
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3492
1.00
3492
1.00
762
1
779
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
14
0
14
2%
Prot
5
3.0
2.3
0.02
3.0
2.0
32
0.01
0.44
58.2
0.80
3.2
49.8
D
Coddingtown Target
24.6
0.47
120.0
54.0%
15
2%
Split
4
18.1
17.4
0.14
3.7
3.0
241
c0.11
0.74
49.2
0.86
11.5
53.9
D
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
16
13
3
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
18.1
21.1
17.4
19.7
0.14
0.16
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
245
306
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.01
49.1
42.0
0.86
1.04
10.5
0.0
52.8
43.6
D
D
53.0
D
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
16.9
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37
1900
11
695
1900
14
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3737
1.00
3737
1.00
695
0
695
112
1900
14
173
1900
10
11
1900
15
70
1900
10
305
1900
12
1.00
11
0
0
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1553
0.95
1553
1.00
70
0
60
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1664
0.95
1664
1.00
305
0
171
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
2
8
2
67.3
76.4
66.6
75.0
0.55
0.62
3.7
3.0
4.0
2.0
2074
1045
c0.19
0.01
0.04
0.34
0.08
14.6
8.9
0.74
0.72
0.4
0.0
11.3
6.4
B
A
12.5
B
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
11.8
11.1
0.09
3.7
3.0
293
0.05
74.2
73.5
0.61
3.7
4.0
2141
0.18
9.1
8.4
0.07
3.0
2.0
109
0.04
9.1
8.4
0.07
3.0
2.0
114
0.04
0.59
52.3
0.95
2.5
52.3
D
0.29
11.0
1.82
0.3
20.2
C
27.2
C
0.55
54.0
1.00
3.4
57.4
E
0.55
54.0
1.00
3.3
57.2
E
53.0
D
4.4
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.85
1.00
1443
1.00
1443
1.00
225
85
140
12
2%
pm+ov
1
8
20.9
19.5
0.16
3.7
3.0
234
c0.06
0.04
0.60
46.6
1.00
4.0
50.6
D
41
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1687
0.96
1687
1.00
41
0
175
14
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
173
0
173
53
1900
10
2%
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1622
0.99
1622
1.00
53
0
63
225
1900
10
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1672
1.00
1672
1.00
112
28
84
615
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3495
1.00
3495
1.00
615
1
625
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
37
0
37
2%
Prot
5
5.6
4.9
0.04
3.0
2.0
69
c0.02
C
4/4/2012
0.54
56.4
0.89
3.7
54.2
D
29.6
0.47
120.0
54.9%
15
Coddingtown Target
2%
Split
4
17.7
17.0
0.14
3.7
3.0
236
0.10
0.72
49.3
0.85
10.4
52.4
D
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
14
11
3
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
17.7
23.3
17.0
21.9
0.14
0.18
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
239
334
c0.10
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.01
49.3
40.2
0.85
1.01
10.8
0.0
53.0
40.4
D
D
52.2
D
C
21.3
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
3: Cleveland Avenue & Guerneville Road/Steele Lane
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
140
1900
11
34
1900
10
319
1900
10
1188
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1188
0
1188
218
1900
10
72
1900
11
501
1900
10
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
72
0
72
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1488
0.95
1488
1.00
501
0
301
238
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
0.98
1.00
0.96
0.98
3123
0.98
3123
1.00
238
27
561
150
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
8.4
7.7
0.06
3.7
3.0
211
0.04
47.3
46.6
0.39
3.7
3.0
1812
c0.23
17.1
16.4
0.14
3.7
3.0
434
0.10
10.3
9.6
0.08
3.7
3.0
136
0.04
10.3
9.6
0.08
3.7
3.0
240
c0.06
30.5
29.8
0.25
3.7
3.0
370
c0.20
30.5
29.8
0.25
3.7
3.0
776
0.18
0.66
54.9
1.20
7.1
72.7
E
0.60
29.3
0.76
1.4
23.6
C
29.1
C
0.74
49.7
0.92
5.2
50.8
D
4.4
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.00
1428
1.00
1428
1.00
218
18
200
18
5
2%
pm+ov
4
6
86.5
85.1
0.71
3.7
3.0
1013
0.05
0.09
0.20
5.9
1.25
0.1
7.4
A
155
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.93
1.00
3005
1.00
3005
1.00
155
132
167
144
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
140
0
140
1062
1900
10
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4667
1.00
4667
1.00
1062
2
1094
0.53
53.0
0.82
3.7
47.0
D
0.69
53.8
0.70
8.3
46.0
D
46.2
D
0.81
42.5
1.00
12.8
55.3
E
0.72
41.3
1.00
3.3
44.7
D
48.3
D
Coddingtown Target
1.00
34
0
0
36
5
2%
34.2
0.77
120.0
82.3%
15
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
319
0
319
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
6
56.0
55.3
0.46
3.7
3.0
1561
c0.35
0.76
26.9
0.85
2.9
25.6
C
28.0
C
1.00
144
0
0
18
5
2%
1.00
150
0
0
36
5
2%
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
C
17.6
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
159
1900
11
58
1900
10
365
1900
10
939
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
939
0
939
254
1900
10
81
1900
11
467
1900
10
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
81
0
81
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1488
0.95
1488
1.00
467
0
290
241
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
0.98
1.00
0.96
0.98
3122
0.98
3122
1.00
241
28
539
149
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
9.8
9.1
0.08
3.7
3.0
249
0.05
42.1
41.4
0.34
3.7
3.0
1601
c0.22
20.3
19.6
0.16
3.7
3.0
518
0.12
12.0
11.3
0.09
3.7
3.0
160
0.05
12.0
11.3
0.09
3.7
3.0
279
c0.07
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
373
c0.19
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
783
0.17
0.64
53.9
1.14
4.9
66.3
E
0.64
33.0
0.79
1.8
27.9
C
33.0
C
0.70
47.5
0.95
3.6
48.9
D
4.4
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.00
1429
1.00
1429
1.00
254
27
227
18
5
2%
pm+ov
4
6
83.4
82.0
0.68
3.7
3.0
976
0.06
0.10
0.23
7.2
1.29
0.1
9.3
A
176
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.92
1.00
2967
1.00
2967
1.00
176
195
203
222
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
159
0
159
972
1900
10
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
4641
1.00
4641
1.00
972
5
1025
0.51
51.7
0.96
2.5
52.2
D
0.73
52.9
0.96
9.1
59.8
E
58.5
E
0.78
41.8
1.00
9.8
51.6
D
0.69
40.7
1.00
2.5
43.2
D
46.1
D
1.00
58
0
0
36
5
2%
37.0
0.68
120.0
79.2%
15
Coddingtown Target
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
365
0
365
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
6
52.6
51.9
0.43
3.7
3.0
1465
c0.28
0.64
26.7
0.90
1.8
25.9
C
28.5
C
1.00
222
0
0
18
5
2%
1.00
149
0
0
36
5
2%
D
13.2
D
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4: U.S. 101 South & Steele Lane
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
11
1278
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
4867
1.00
4867
1.00
1278
0
1278
2%
NA
2
593
1900
12
452
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
370
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
452
0
452
2%
Prot
1
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
370
0
203
2%
Split
4
42
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.96
1741
0.96
1741
1.00
42
0
209
2%
NA
4
370
1900
12
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
593
306
287
2%
Perm
1333
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1333
0
1333
2%
NA
6
21.3
20.6
0.17
3.7
3.0
564
c0.14
82.3
81.6
0.68
3.7
3.0
2303
c0.39
30.3
29.6
0.25
3.7
3.0
424
0.12
30.3
29.6
0.25
3.7
3.0
429
0.12
0.80
47.7
1.45
5.1
74.2
E
0.58
10.1
0.24
0.7
3.1
A
21.1
C
0.48
38.6
1.00
0.9
39.5
D
0.49
38.7
1.00
0.9
39.6
D
48.3
D
1.00
0
0
0
2%
57.3
56.6
0.47
3.7
3.0
2296
0.26
0.56
22.7
0.51
0.8
12.3
B
14.6
B
Coddingtown Target
2
57.3
56.6
0.47
3.7
3.0
739
0.18
0.39
20.5
0.90
1.2
19.6
B
23.2
0.68
120.0
118.1%
15
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
0.0
A
C
8.8
H
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
370
44
326
2%
Perm
4
30.3
29.6
0.25
3.7
3.0
387
c0.21
0.84
43.0
1.00
15.1
58.1
E
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
11
893
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
4867
1.00
4867
1.00
893
0
893
2%
NA
2
742
1900
12
322
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
190
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
322
0
322
2%
Prot
1
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
190
0
95
2%
Split
4
0
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
0
0
95
2%
NA
4
397
1900
12
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
742
364
378
2%
Perm
1223
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1223
0
1223
2%
NA
6
16.3
15.6
0.13
3.7
3.0
427
c0.10
81.8
81.1
0.68
3.7
3.0
2289
c0.36
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
431
0.06
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
431
0.06
0.75
50.3
1.26
6.2
69.9
E
0.53
9.9
0.24
0.7
3.1
A
17.0
B
0.22
35.6
1.00
0.3
35.9
D
0.22
35.6
1.00
0.3
35.9
D
53.0
D
1.00
0
0
0
2%
61.8
61.1
0.51
3.7
3.0
2478
0.18
0.36
17.7
0.41
0.3
7.5
A
21.7
C
2
61.8
61.1
0.51
3.7
3.0
798
0.24
0.47
19.0
1.95
1.5
38.6
D
24.6
0.65
120.0
120.4%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
0.0
A
C
8.8
H
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
397
55
342
2%
Perm
4
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
393
c0.22
0.87
43.1
1.00
18.1
61.1
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
5: U.S. 101 North & Steele Lane
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
435
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
1162
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.96
1.00
4691
1.00
4691
1.00
1162
46
1483
2%
NA
6
367
1900
16
649
1900
13
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
649
0
383
2%
Split
8
0
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.91
0.96
0.97
1602
0.97
1602
1.00
0
13
361
2%
NA
8
449
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
435
0
435
2%
Prot
5
1172
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1172
0
1172
2%
NA
2
22.3
21.6
0.18
3.7
3.0
591
c0.13
76.3
75.6
0.63
3.7
3.0
2134
0.35
50.3
49.6
0.41
3.7
3.0
1939
c0.32
36.3
35.6
0.30
3.7
3.0
510
0.22
36.3
35.6
0.30
3.7
3.0
475
c0.23
0.74
46.5
0.96
4.0
48.6
D
0.55
12.6
0.26
0.9
4.1
A
16.2
B
0.76
30.2
0.90
2.7
30.0
C
30.0
C
0.75
38.2
1.00
6.2
44.3
D
0.76
38.3
1.00
7.1
45.4
D
43.2
D
Coddingtown Target
1.00
0
0
0
2%
28.2
0.76
120.0
118.1%
15
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
367
0
0
2%
4.4
0.95
0.85
1.00
1489
1.00
1489
1.00
449
60
281
2%
Perm
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
8
36.3
35.6
0.30
3.7
3.0
442
0.19
0.63
36.6
1.00
3.0
39.5
D
0.0
A
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
300
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
885
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.97
1.00
4744
1.00
4744
1.00
885
24
1040
2%
NA
6
179
1900
16
719
1900
13
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
719
0
381
2%
Split
8
0
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.91
0.99
0.96
1636
0.96
1636
1.00
0
3
370
2%
NA
8
350
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
300
0
300
2%
Prot
5
782
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
782
0
782
2%
NA
2
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
20.3
19.6
0.16
3.7
3.0
537
c0.09
71.5
70.8
0.59
3.7
3.0
1998
0.23
47.5
46.8
0.39
3.7
3.0
1850
c0.22
41.1
40.4
0.34
3.7
3.0
579
0.22
41.1
40.4
0.34
3.7
3.0
551
c0.23
0.56
46.2
1.10
1.2
52.1
D
0.39
13.1
0.53
0.6
7.5
A
19.9
B
0.56
28.6
0.80
1.2
24.1
C
24.1
C
0.66
33.9
1.00
2.7
36.6
D
0.67
34.1
1.00
3.2
37.3
D
35.2
D
C
13.2
H
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
1.00
0
0
0
2%
26.4
0.60
120.0
120.4%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
179
0
0
2%
4.4
0.95
0.85
1.00
1489
1.00
1489
1.00
350
111
204
2%
Perm
8
41.1
40.4
0.34
3.7
3.0
501
0.14
0.41
30.6
1.00
0.5
31.1
C
0.0
A
C
13.2
H
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
6: County Center Drive & Steele Lane
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
247
1900
11
283
1900
16
18
1900
12
263
1900
11
33
1900
11
1.00
283
0
0
22
1900
12
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1791
1.00
1791
1.00
22
0
22
475
1900
11
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1497
0.95
1497
1.00
263
0
131
23
1900
12
2%
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.96
3070
0.96
3070
1.00
23
11
169
25
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1702
0.95
1702
1.00
18
0
18
832
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5009
1.00
5009
1.00
832
3
855
26
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
247
0
247
1083
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
3374
1.00
3374
1.00
1083
14
1352
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
5%
5%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
5%
Split
3
5%
NA
3
25.1
24.4
0.20
3.7
3.0
668
0.08
82.6
81.9
0.68
3.7
3.0
2303
c0.40
2.4
2.4
0.02
3.0
2.0
34
c0.01
59.2
58.5
0.49
3.7
3.0
2442
0.17
14.9
14.9
0.12
3.0
2.0
186
c0.09
14.9
14.9
0.12
3.0
2.0
381
0.05
6.7
6.0
0.05
3.7
3.0
85
0.02
0.37
41.2
0.94
0.3
38.8
D
0.59
10.1
0.75
0.9
8.5
A
13.1
B
0.53
58.2
1.00
6.7
64.9
E
0.35
19.0
1.00
0.4
19.4
B
20.3
C
0.70
50.4
1.00
9.5
59.9
E
0.44
48.7
1.00
0.3
49.0
D
53.6
D
0.39
55.2
1.00
2.9
58.1
E
Coddingtown Target
23.2
0.60
120.0
67.4%
15
1.00
26
0
0
6
2%
1.00
25
0
0
6
5%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
33
0
33
2%
Split
4
4.4
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
2667
1.00
2667
1.00
475
149
326
5%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
6.7
31.8
6.0
30.4
0.05
0.25
3.7
3.7
3.0
3.0
90
676
0.01 c0.10
0.02
0.24
0.48
54.8
38.1
1.00
1.00
1.4
0.5
56.2
38.7
E
D
40.6
D
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
C
14.8
C
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
214
1900
11
106
1900
16
9
1900
12
97
1900
11
44
1900
11
1.00
106
0
0
20
1900
12
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1791
1.00
1791
1.00
20
0
20
269
1900
11
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1497
0.95
1497
1.00
97
0
48
9
1900
12
2%
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.97
3035
0.97
3035
1.00
9
16
59
17
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1702
0.95
1702
1.00
9
0
9
781
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
4983
1.00
4983
1.00
781
4
827
50
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
214
0
214
927
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
3440
1.00
3440
1.00
927
4
1029
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
5%
5%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
5%
Split
3
5%
NA
3
21.7
21.0
0.18
3.7
3.0
575
0.07
90.5
89.8
0.75
3.7
3.0
2574
c0.30
1.3
1.3
0.01
3.0
2.0
18
c0.01
69.4
68.7
0.57
3.7
3.0
2853
0.17
7.4
7.4
0.06
3.0
2.0
92
c0.03
7.4
7.4
0.06
3.0
2.0
187
0.02
7.4
6.7
0.06
3.7
3.0
95
c0.03
0.37
43.7
0.82
0.4
36.1
D
0.40
5.4
0.49
0.4
3.1
A
8.7
A
0.50
59.0
1.00
7.7
66.8
E
0.29
13.1
1.00
0.3
13.4
B
14.0
B
0.52
54.6
1.00
2.4
57.0
E
0.32
53.9
1.00
0.4
54.2
D
55.3
E
0.46
54.9
1.00
3.5
58.5
E
16.9
0.41
120.0
53.6%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
50
0
0
6
2%
1.00
17
0
0
6
5%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
44
0
44
2%
Split
4
4.4
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
2667
1.00
2667
1.00
269
207
62
5%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
7.4
29.1
6.7
27.7
0.06
0.23
3.7
3.7
3.0
3.0
100
616
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.20
0.10
54.1
36.3
1.00
1.00
1.0
0.1
55.1
36.4
E
D
40.4
D
B
14.8
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
7: Cleveland Avenue & Coddingtown Driveway
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
75
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.95
1719
1.00
75
0
75
NA
4
41
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
41
37
4
Perm
59
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.43
784
1.00
59
0
59
pm+pt
5
2
47.8
47.8
0.80
3.0
2.0
674
0.00
0.07
0.09
1.6
1.12
0.0
1.8
A
298
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
298
0
298
NA
2
451
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
451
0
451
NA
6
119
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
119
36
83
Perm
47.8
47.8
0.80
3.0
2.0
1442
c0.16
41.6
41.6
0.69
3.0
2.0
1255
c0.25
0.21
1.5
1.18
0.3
2.1
A
2.0
A
0.36
3.8
0.96
0.6
4.2
A
4.1
A
6.2
6.2
0.10
3.0
2.0
178
c0.04
0.42
25.2
1.00
0.6
25.8
C
25.2
C
4
6.2
6.2
0.10
3.0
2.0
159
0.00
0.03
24.2
1.00
0.0
24.2
C
Coddingtown Target
5.7
0.36
60.0
41.2%
15
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
6
41.6
41.6
0.69
3.0
2.0
1066
0.05
0.08
3.0
1.20
0.1
3.7
A
A
9.0
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
134
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.95
1719
1.00
134
0
134
NA
4
57
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
57
49
8
Perm
85
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.43
786
1.00
85
0
85
pm+pt
5
2
45.9
45.9
0.76
3.0
2.0
671
0.01
0.09
0.13
2.1
0.85
0.0
1.8
A
311
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
311
0
311
NA
2
421
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
421
0
421
NA
6
205
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
205
74
131
Perm
45.9
45.9
0.76
3.0
2.0
1385
c0.17
38.4
38.4
0.64
3.0
2.0
1158
c0.23
0.22
2.0
0.88
0.4
2.1
A
2.1
A
0.36
5.1
0.78
0.6
4.6
A
4.7
A
8.1
8.1
0.13
3.0
2.0
232
c0.08
4/4/2012
0.58
24.3
1.00
2.2
26.5
C
25.3
C
4
8.1
8.1
0.13
3.0
2.0
208
0.01
0.04
22.6
1.00
0.0
22.6
C
7.1
0.39
60.0
44.3%
15
Coddingtown Target
6
38.4
38.4
0.64
3.0
2.0
984
0.09
0.13
4.3
1.12
0.2
5.0
A
A
9.0
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Range Avenue & Jennings Avenue
4/4/2012
Movement
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15
1.00
15
Stop
8
1.00
8
37
1.00
37
4
1.00
4
Stop
10
1.00
10
12
1.00
12
32
1.00
32
Stop
96
1.00
96
2
1.00
2
19
1.00
19
Stop
166
1.00
166
23
1.00
23
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total (vph)
Volume Left (vph)
Volume Right (vph)
Hadj (s)
Departure Headway (s)
Degree Utilization, x
Capacity (veh/h)
Control Delay (s)
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EB 1
60
15
37
-0.23
4.5
0.07
739
7.8
7.8
A
WB 1
26
4
12
-0.16
4.6
0.03
716
7.8
7.8
A
NB 1
32
32
0
0.58
5.4
0.05
641
7.5
7.5
A
NB 2
98
0
2
0.07
4.9
0.13
707
7.5
Delay
Coddingtown Target
8.2
A
30.9%
15
SB 1
208
19
23
0.04
4.4
0.25
792
8.9
8.9
A
Movement
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
13
1.00
13
Stop
3
1.00
3
22
1.00
22
4
1.00
4
Stop
6
1.00
6
15
1.00
15
22
1.00
22
Stop
86
1.00
86
1
1.00
1
17
1.00
17
Stop
137
1.00
137
14
1.00
14
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total (vph)
Volume Left (vph)
Volume Right (vph)
Hadj (s)
Capacity (veh/h)
Control Delay (s)
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EB 1
38
13
22
-0.19
4.4
0.05
762
7.6
7.6
A
WB 1
25
4
15
-0.24
4.3
0.03
766
7.5
7.5
A
NB 1
22
22
0
0.58
5.4
0.03
654
7.3
7.3
A
NB 2
87
0
1
0.08
4.8
0.12
723
7.3
Delay
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
7.9
A
27.3%
15
Coddingtown Target
SB 1
168
17
14
0.06
4.3
0.20
817
8.4
8.4
A
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
9: Cleveland Avenue & Jennings Avenue
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
19
Stop
0%
1.00
19
26
24
1.00
24
421
Free
0%
1.00
421
15
1.00
26
344
Free
0%
1.00
344
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
1.00
15
6
TWLTL TWLTL
2
2
1312
1274
820
428
392
820
6.9
5.9
3.5
96
503
218
436
218
7.0
436
4.2
3.3
97
777
2.2
98
1099
EB 1
45
19
26
1191
0.04
3
10.9
B
10.9
B
NB 1
24
24
0
1099
0.02
2
8.3
A
0.5
NB 2
344
0
0
1700
0.20
0
0.0
Average Delay
Coddingtown Target
SB 1
281
0
0
1700
0.17
0
0.0
SB 2
155
0
15
1700
0.09
0
0.0
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
0.0
0.8
28.8%
15
Average Delay
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
13
Stop
0%
1.00
13
20
20
1.00
20
478
Free
0%
1.00
478
16
1.00
20
359
Free
0%
1.00
359
1.00
16
6
TWLTL TWLTL
2
2
1312
1274
885
486
399
885
6.9
5.9
3.5
97
478
247
494
247
7.0
494
4.2
3.3
97
744
2.2
98
1045
EB 1
33
13
20
1214
0.03
2
11.1
B
11.1
B
NB 1
20
20
0
1045
0.02
1
8.5
A
0.4
NB 2
359
0
0
1700
0.21
0
0.0
SB 1
319
0
0
1700
0.19
0
0.0
SB 2
175
0
16
1700
0.10
0
0.0
0.0
0.6
28.9%
15
Coddingtown Target
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
10: Cleveland Avenue & Frances Street
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
4/4/2012
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
11
219
1900
1900
3.0
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
1.00
1.00
11
219
0
195
11
24
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
1.2
6.6
1.2
6.6
0.02
0.11
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
34
246
c0.01
0.01
0.01
0.32
0.10
29.0
24.0
1.00
1.00
2.0
0.1
31.0
24.1
C
C
24.4
C
123
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.46
823
1.00
123
0
123
pm+pt
5
2
52.8
52.8
0.88
3.0
2.0
805
0.01
0.12
0.15
0.6
1.52
0.0
0.9
A
362
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
362
0
362
NA
2
455
1900
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3429
1.00
3429
1.00
455
1
462
NA
6
8
1900
52.8
52.8
0.88
3.0
2.0
1593
c0.20
44.4
44.4
0.74
3.0
2.0
2537
0.13
0.23
0.5
1.86
0.3
1.3
A
1.2
A
0.18
2.3
0.25
0.2
0.7
A
0.7
A
Coddingtown Target
5.6
0.23
60.0
33.1%
15
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
1.00
8
0
0
A
6.0
A
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
14
162
1900
1900
3.0
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
1.00
1.00
14
162
0
147
14
15
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
1.2
5.5
1.2
5.5
0.02
0.09
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
34
218
c0.01
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.07
29.1
24.9
1.00
1.00
2.9
0.0
32.0
25.0
C
C
25.5
C
100
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.44
791
1.00
100
0
100
pm+pt
5
2
52.8
52.8
0.88
3.0
2.0
763
0.01
0.11
0.13
0.5
1.54
0.0
0.9
A
370
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
370
0
370
NA
2
485
1900
3.0
0.95
0.99
1.00
3417
1.00
3417
1.00
485
2
504
NA
6
21
1900
52.8
52.8
0.88
3.0
2.0
1593
c0.20
45.5
45.5
0.76
3.0
2.0
2591
0.15
0.23
0.5
1.60
0.3
1.2
A
1.1
A
0.19
2.1
1.10
0.2
2.4
A
2.4
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
5.4
0.24
60.0
32.9%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
21
0
0
A
6.0
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
11: Cleveland Avenue & College Avenue
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
103
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
103
0
103
1066
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
3512
1.00
3512
1.00
1066
2
1103
39
1900
14
79
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
79
0
79
921
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
921
0
921
38
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
38
0
38
153
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.95
1.00
1758
1.00
1758
1.00
153
14
211
72
1900
12
371
1900
11
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3319
0.95
3319
1.00
371
0
371
20
1900
14
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.87
1.00
1682
1.00
1682
1.00
20
85
55
120
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Prot
3
2%
NA
8
2%
Prot
7
2%
NA
4
11.4
11.4
0.10
3.0
3.0
168
0.06
59.8
59.8
0.50
3.0
3.0
1750
c0.31
9.6
9.6
0.08
3.0
3.0
142
0.04
58.0
58.0
0.48
3.0
3.0
1768
c0.25
3.6
3.6
0.03
3.0
3.0
53
0.02
20.0
20.0
0.17
3.0
3.0
293
c0.12
18.6
18.6
0.16
3.0
3.0
514
c0.11
35.0
35.0
0.29
3.0
3.0
491
0.03
0.61
52.2
1.00
6.5
58.7
E
0.63
22.0
1.00
1.7
23.8
C
26.7
C
0.56
53.1
0.78
4.4
46.0
D
0.52
21.4
0.56
1.0
13.0
B
14.5
B
256
1900
13
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
1.00
1589
1.00
1589
1.00
256
31
225
4
6
2%
pm+ov
7
6
76.6
76.6
0.64
3.0
3.0
1054
0.03
0.11
0.21
9.1
1.12
0.1
10.3
B
0.72
57.7
1.00
36.9
94.6
F
0.72
47.3
1.00
8.2
55.5
E
61.2
E
0.72
48.2
0.83
4.8
45.1
D
0.11
31.1
1.22
0.1
37.9
D
43.1
D
Coddingtown Target
1.00
39
0
0
8
6
2%
27.4
0.65
120.0
71.6%
15
1.00
72
0
0
4
6
2%
C
9.0
C
1.00
120
0
0
8
6
2%
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
87
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
87
0
87
685
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
3499
1.00
3499
1.00
685
2
721
38
1900
14
61
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
61
0
61
621
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
621
0
621
33
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
33
0
33
118
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.94
1.00
1734
1.00
1734
1.00
118
21
173
76
1900
12
353
1900
11
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3319
0.95
3319
1.00
353
0
353
163
1900
14
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.94
1.00
1834
1.00
1834
1.00
163
25
259
121
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Prot
3
2%
NA
8
2%
Prot
7
2%
NA
4
11.2
11.2
0.09
3.0
3.0
165
c0.05
60.7
60.7
0.51
3.0
3.0
1770
c0.21
8.8
8.8
0.07
3.0
3.0
130
c0.03
58.3
58.3
0.49
3.0
3.0
1777
0.17
4.7
4.7
0.04
3.0
3.0
69
0.02
18.3
18.3
0.15
3.0
3.0
264
c0.10
20.2
20.2
0.17
3.0
3.0
559
c0.11
33.8
33.8
0.28
3.0
3.0
517
0.14
0.53
51.9
1.00
3.0
54.9
D
0.41
18.5
1.00
0.7
19.1
B
23.0
C
0.47
53.4
0.82
2.6
46.2
D
0.35
19.1
0.69
0.5
13.8
B
12.5
B
267
1900
13
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
1.00
1590
1.00
1590
1.00
267
42
226
4
6
2%
pm+ov
7
6
78.5
78.5
0.65
3.0
3.0
1080
0.04
0.11
0.21
8.3
0.23
0.1
2.0
A
0.48
56.4
1.00
5.1
61.6
E
0.65
47.9
1.00
5.7
53.6
D
54.8
D
0.63
46.4
1.08
2.3
52.3
D
0.50
36.0
0.69
0.7
25.7
C
40.5
D
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
1.00
38
0
0
8
6
2%
26.2
0.51
120.0
58.8%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
76
0
0
4
6
2%
1.00
121
0
0
8
6
2%
C
12.0
B
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
12: U.S.101 South & College Avenue
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
12
958
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
958
0
958
590
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.85
1.00
1488
1.00
1488
1.00
590
207
383
15
2%
Perm
506
1900
10
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3204
0.95
3204
1.00
506
0
506
963
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
963
0
963
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
31
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1812
0.96
1812
1.00
31
0
188
297
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1689
1.00
1689
1.00
297
154
143
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
341
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
341
0
184
2%
2%
2%
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
2%
Perm
1.00
0
0
0
2%
2%
NA
2
65.5
66.5
0.55
4.0
3.0
1961
c0.27
0.49
16.4
0.90
0.7
15.3
B
22.2
C
Coddingtown Target
2
65.5
66.5
0.55
4.0
3.0
825
0.26
0.46
16.1
1.98
1.5
33.3
C
23.2
0.58
120.0
84.1%
15
24.1
24.1
0.20
3.0
3.0
643
c0.16
92.6
93.6
0.78
4.0
3.0
2852
0.26
20.4
20.4
0.17
3.0
3.0
305
0.10
20.4
20.4
0.17
3.0
3.0
308
c0.10
0.79
45.5
0.56
3.3
28.7
C
0.34
3.9
1.13
0.2
4.7
A
12.9
B
0.60
46.1
1.00
3.3
49.4
D
0.61
46.1
1.00
3.6
49.7
D
48.2
D
0.0
A
C
9.0
E
4
20.4
20.4
0.17
3.0
3.0
287
0.08
0.50
45.2
1.00
1.4
46.5
D
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
12
622
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
622
0
622
490
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.85
1.00
1488
1.00
1488
1.00
490
139
351
15
2%
Perm
455
1900
10
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3204
0.95
3204
1.00
455
0
455
791
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
791
0
791
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
14
0
1900
14
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
176
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1689
1.00
1689
1.00
176
168
8
2%
2%
2%
2%
Split
4
2%
22.5
22.5
0.19
3.0
3.0
601
c0.14
107.5
108.5
0.90
4.0
3.0
3307
0.22
0.76
46.2
0.42
4.4
24.0
C
0.24
0.7
1.77
0.1
1.4
A
9.6
A
1.00
0
0
0
2%
2%
NA
2
82.0
83.0
0.69
4.0
3.0
2448
0.18
0.25
6.9
0.85
0.2
6.1
A
8.9
A
2
82.0
83.0
0.69
4.0
3.0
1029
c0.24
0.34
7.5
1.57
0.8
12.5
B
12.5
0.41
120.0
66.4%
15
Coddingtown Target
2%
Perm
4
4
5.5
5.5
0.05
3.0
3.0
77
c0.00
0.10
54.9
1.00
0.6
55.5
E
0.0
A
55.5
E
B
9.0
C
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
13: U.S.101 North & College Avenue
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
244
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
244
0
244
1057
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
1057
0
1057
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
447
1900
13
0
1900
14
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.98
1610
0.98
1610
1.00
0
49
229
438
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1604
1.00
1604
1.00
438
124
143
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
397
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
397
0
290
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
1100
1900
13
3.0
0.95
0.98
1.00
0.96
1.00
3442
1.00
3442
1.00
1100
38
1509
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
2%
Perm
2%
2%
2%
26.1
26.1
0.22
3.0
3.0
385
c0.14
88.8
89.8
0.75
4.0
3.0
2648
0.30
59.7
60.7
0.51
4.0
3.0
1741
c0.44
24.2
24.2
0.20
3.0
3.0
362
c0.16
24.2
24.2
0.20
3.0
3.0
325
0.14
0.63
42.6
0.80
3.0
37.0
D
0.40
5.4
0.90
0.4
5.3
A
11.2
B
0.87
26.1
0.36
5.5
14.9
B
14.9
B
0.80
45.6
1.00
12.0
57.6
E
0.71
44.6
1.00
6.8
51.4
D
50.9
D
Coddingtown Target
21.7
0.80
120.0
84.1%
15
2%
2%
NA
6
1.00
447
0
0
15
2%
8
24.2
24.2
0.20
3.0
3.0
323
0.09
0.44
42.0
1.00
1.0
43.0
D
0.0
A
C
9.0
E
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/4/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
137
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
137
0
137
730
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
730
0
730
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
289
1900
13
19
1900
14
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.98
1626
0.98
1626
1.00
19
42
177
335
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1604
1.00
1604
1.00
335
170
41
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
305
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
305
0
229
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
907
1900
13
3.0
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.96
1.00
3477
1.00
3477
1.00
907
29
1167
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
2%
Perm
2%
2%
2%
33.0
33.0
0.28
3.0
3.0
487
0.08
89.8
90.8
0.76
4.0
3.0
2678
c0.21
53.8
54.8
0.46
4.0
3.0
1588
c0.34
23.2
23.2
0.19
3.0
3.0
347
c0.13
23.2
23.2
0.19
3.0
3.0
314
0.11
0.28
34.2
0.96
0.3
33.1
C
0.27
4.5
1.03
0.3
4.9
A
9.3
A
0.73
26.7
0.18
2.5
7.3
A
7.3
A
0.66
44.8
1.00
4.5
49.3
D
0.56
43.8
1.00
2.3
46.1
D
45.3
D
17.2
0.57
120.0
66.4%
15
Coddingtown Target
2%
2%
NA
6
1.00
289
0
0
15
2%
8
23.2
23.2
0.19
3.0
3.0
310
0.03
0.13
40.1
1.00
0.2
40.3
D
0.0
A
B
6.0
C
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
164
1900
12
224
1900
12
104
1900
11
255
1900
11
125
1900
10
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1541
0.95
1541
1.00
255
0
191
184
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.91
1.00
3159
1.00
3159
1.00
184
240
217
273
1900
14
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
104
0
104
160
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.97
1.00
0.94
0.99
2943
0.99
2943
1.00
160
84
287
147
1900
11
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2.7
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.85
1.00
1484
1.00
1484
1.00
224
117
107
24
2
2%
Perm
702
1900
12
2%
3.2
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3482
1.00
3482
1.00
702
1
721
20
1900
15
3.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1752
0.95
1752
1.00
164
0
164
655
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3504
1.00
3504
1.00
655
0
655
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
20.0
19.9
0.17
3.1
2.0
291
c0.09
56.1
55.4
0.46
3.7
2.0
1618
0.19
11.3
10.6
0.09
3.7
2.0
150
c0.06
48.6
48.5
0.40
3.1
2.0
1407
c0.21
24.2
23.5
0.20
3.7
2.0
302
c0.12
0.56
46.1
1.00
1.5
47.5
D
0.40
21.4
1.00
0.8
22.1
C
25.3
C
0.69
53.1
1.15
10.3
71.5
E
0.51
26.9
0.55
1.3
16.1
B
23.1
C
0.63
44.3
1.00
3.2
47.4
D
Coddingtown Target
PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions plus Project
2
56.1
57.1
0.48
3.7
2.0
706
0.07
0.15
17.8
1.00
0.5
18.2
B
29.0
0.59
120.0
82.5%
15
1.00
20
0
0
48
2
2%
1.00
147
0
0
48
2
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1635
0.95
1635
1.00
125
0
125
12
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
24.2
23.5
0.20
3.7
2.0
576
0.10
13.6
12.9
0.11
3.7
2.0
176
c0.08
13.6
12.9
0.11
3.7
2.0
340
0.07
0.50
43.0
1.00
0.2
43.3
D
44.7
D
0.71
51.7
0.72
10.4
47.8
D
0.64
51.3
0.41
2.8
23.8
C
29.0
C
1.00
273
0
0
2
2%
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
142
1900
12
162
1900
12
123
1900
11
194
1900
11
133
1900
10
183
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.94
1.00
3266
1.00
3266
1.00
183
112
199
128
1900
14
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1541
0.95
1541
1.00
194
0
175
166
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.96
1.00
0.91
1.00
2836
1.00
2836
1.00
166
209
235
259
1900
11
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
123
0
123
578
1900
12
2%
3.2
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
3465
1.00
3465
1.00
578
2
606
30
1900
15
3.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1752
0.95
1752
1.00
142
0
142
502
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.96
1.00
3332
1.00
3332
1.00
502
20
644
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
18.9
18.8
0.16
3.1
2.0
274
c0.08
54.4
53.7
0.45
3.7
2.0
1491
0.19
12.9
12.2
0.10
3.7
2.0
172
c0.07
49.6
49.5
0.41
3.1
2.0
1429
c0.17
23.8
23.1
0.19
3.7
2.0
297
c0.11
0.52
46.4
1.00
0.7
47.1
D
0.43
22.7
1.00
0.9
23.6
C
27.8
C
0.72
52.2
0.95
10.9
60.4
E
0.42
25.1
0.58
0.9
15.5
B
23.1
C
0.59
44.1
1.00
1.9
46.1
D
C
16.4
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
1.00
162
0
0
24
2
2%
31.2
0.55
120.0
77.0%
15
Coddingtown Target
Wknd Midday Peak Hour Existing Conditions plus Project
1.00
30
0
0
48
2
2%
1.00
259
0
0
48
2
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1635
0.95
1635
1.00
133
0
133
12
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
23.8
23.1
0.19
3.7
2.0
546
0.08
14.1
13.4
0.11
3.7
2.0
183
c0.08
14.1
13.4
0.11
3.7
2.0
365
0.06
0.43
42.7
1.00
0.2
42.9
D
43.8
D
0.73
51.5
0.70
11.2
47.4
D
0.55
50.4
0.52
0.9
27.0
C
33.1
C
1.00
128
0
0
2
2%
C
16.4
D
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
14
1900
11
801
1900
14
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3737
1.00
3737
1.00
801
0
801
105
1900
14
151
1900
10
18
1900
15
62
1900
10
314
1900
12
1.00
18
0
0
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1553
0.95
1553
1.00
62
0
48
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1664
0.95
1664
1.00
314
0
179
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
2
8
2
68.6
76.8
67.9
75.4
0.57
0.63
3.7
3.0
4.0
2.0
2115
1051
c0.21
0.00
0.04
0.38
0.08
14.4
8.7
0.57
0.34
0.5
0.0
8.7
3.0
A
A
8.7
A
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
11.0
10.3
0.09
3.7
3.0
272
c0.05
77.3
76.6
0.64
3.7
4.0
2229
0.22
8.2
7.5
0.06
3.0
2.0
97
0.03
8.2
7.5
0.06
3.0
2.0
101
c0.03
0.56
52.7
0.88
1.6
47.9
D
0.35
10.1
1.89
0.3
19.3
B
24.0
C
0.49
54.4
1.00
1.4
55.9
E
0.50
54.4
1.00
1.4
55.8
E
50.1
D
4.4
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.85
1.00
1444
1.00
1444
1.00
146
83
63
12
2%
pm+ov
1
8
19.2
17.8
0.15
3.7
3.0
214
0.03
0.02
0.30
45.5
1.00
0.8
46.3
D
44
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1688
0.96
1688
1.00
44
0
179
16
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
151
0
151
36
1900
10
2%
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1613
0.99
1613
1.00
36
0
50
146
1900
10
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1672
1.00
1672
1.00
105
25
80
757
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3492
1.00
3492
1.00
757
1
774
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
14
0
14
2%
Prot
5
3.0
2.3
0.02
3.0
2.0
32
0.01
0.44
58.2
0.81
3.2
50.3
D
Coddingtown Target
25.3
0.47
120.0
54.0%
15
2%
Split
4
18.1
17.4
0.14
3.7
3.0
241
c0.11
0.74
49.2
0.86
11.5
54.0
D
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
16
13
3
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
18.1
21.1
17.4
19.7
0.14
0.16
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
245
306
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.01
49.1
42.0
0.86
1.04
10.5
0.0
52.9
43.7
D
D
53.0
D
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
16.9
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37
1900
11
694
1900
14
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3737
1.00
3737
1.00
694
0
694
112
1900
14
173
1900
10
11
1900
15
70
1900
10
305
1900
12
1.00
11
0
0
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1553
0.95
1553
1.00
70
0
60
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1664
0.95
1664
1.00
305
0
171
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
2
8
2
67.3
76.4
66.6
75.0
0.55
0.62
3.7
3.0
4.0
2.0
2074
1045
c0.19
0.01
0.04
0.33
0.08
14.6
8.9
0.77
0.77
0.4
0.0
11.6
6.8
B
A
12.9
B
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
11.8
11.1
0.09
3.7
3.0
293
0.05
74.2
73.5
0.61
3.7
4.0
2141
0.18
9.1
8.4
0.07
3.0
2.0
109
0.04
9.1
8.4
0.07
3.0
2.0
114
0.04
0.59
52.3
0.94
2.4
51.6
D
0.29
11.0
1.87
0.3
20.7
C
27.4
C
0.55
54.0
1.00
3.4
57.4
E
0.55
54.0
1.00
3.3
57.2
E
53.0
D
4.4
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.85
1.00
1443
1.00
1443
1.00
225
85
140
12
2%
pm+ov
1
8
20.9
19.5
0.16
3.7
3.0
234
c0.06
0.04
0.60
46.6
1.00
4.0
50.6
D
41
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1687
0.96
1687
1.00
41
0
175
14
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
173
0
173
53
1900
10
2%
3.7
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1622
0.99
1622
1.00
53
0
63
225
1900
10
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1672
1.00
1672
1.00
112
29
84
611
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3495
1.00
3495
1.00
611
1
621
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
37
0
37
2%
Prot
5
5.6
4.9
0.04
3.0
2.0
69
c0.02
C
4/9/2012
0.54
56.4
0.89
3.6
53.8
D
29.8
0.47
120.0
54.9%
15
Coddingtown Target
2%
Split
4
17.7
17.0
0.14
3.7
3.0
236
0.10
0.72
49.3
0.85
10.4
52.4
D
3.7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
14
11
3
2%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
17.7
23.3
17.0
21.9
0.14
0.18
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
239
334
c0.10
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.01
49.3
40.2
0.85
1.01
10.8
0.0
52.9
40.4
D
D
52.2
D
C
21.3
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
140
1900
11
34
1900
10
471
1900
10
1183
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1183
0
1183
218
1900
10
72
1900
11
501
1900
10
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
72
0
72
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1488
0.95
1488
1.00
501
0
301
241
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
0.98
1.00
0.96
0.98
3124
0.98
3124
1.00
241
26
565
150
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
8.4
7.7
0.06
3.7
3.0
211
0.04
43.6
42.9
0.36
3.7
3.0
1668
c0.23
20.3
19.6
0.16
3.7
3.0
518
c0.15
11.2
10.5
0.09
3.7
3.0
148
0.04
11.2
10.5
0.09
3.7
3.0
253
c0.06
30.1
29.4
0.24
3.7
3.0
365
c0.20
30.1
29.4
0.24
3.7
3.0
765
0.18
0.66
54.9
1.16
7.1
70.6
E
0.65
32.3
0.77
1.9
26.8
C
31.7
C
0.91
49.3
0.96
15.4
62.9
E
4.4
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.00
1428
1.00
1428
1.00
218
24
194
18
5
2%
pm+ov
4
6
85.6
84.2
0.70
3.7
3.0
1002
0.05
0.09
0.19
6.2
1.33
0.1
8.3
A
159
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.90
1.00
2895
1.00
2895
1.00
159
261
185
287
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
140
0
140
1061
1900
10
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4667
1.00
4667
1.00
1061
3
1092
0.49
52.2
1.15
2.4
62.2
E
0.73
53.4
1.60
10.0
95.5
F
90.9
F
0.82
42.9
1.00
14.0
56.9
E
0.74
41.8
1.00
3.7
45.5
D
49.3
D
Coddingtown Target
1.00
34
0
0
36
5
2%
43.0
0.83
120.0
87.2%
15
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
471
0
471
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
6
55.5
54.8
0.46
3.7
3.0
1547
c0.35
0.76
27.2
0.91
2.7
27.5
C
34.1
C
1.00
287
0
0
18
5
2%
1.00
150
0
0
36
5
2%
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
D
22.0
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
159
1900
11
58
1900
10
547
1900
10
935
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
935
0
935
254
1900
10
81
1900
11
467
1900
10
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
81
0
81
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1488
0.95
1488
1.00
467
0
290
245
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
0.98
1.00
0.96
0.98
3123
0.98
3123
1.00
245
28
543
149
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Split
3
2%
NA
3
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
9.7
9.0
0.08
3.7
3.0
246
0.05
40.0
39.3
0.33
3.7
3.0
1520
c0.22
20.3
19.6
0.16
3.7
3.0
518
c0.17
14.1
13.4
0.11
3.7
3.0
189
0.05
14.1
13.4
0.11
3.7
3.0
323
c0.10
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
373
c0.19
30.8
30.1
0.25
3.7
3.0
783
0.17
0.65
54.0
1.07
5.3
62.9
E
0.67
34.8
0.85
2.2
31.8
C
36.0
D
1.06
50.2
0.96
49.1
97.2
F
4.4
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.00
1429
1.00
1429
1.00
254
28
226
18
5
2%
pm+ov
4
6
81.4
80.0
0.67
3.7
3.0
953
0.06
0.10
0.24
7.9
1.37
0.1
10.9
B
180
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.90
1.00
2896
1.00
2896
1.00
180
271
301
392
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
159
0
159
971
1900
10
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
4641
1.00
4641
1.00
971
5
1024
0.43
49.7
0.72
1.4
37.0
D
0.93
52.8
0.81
30.9
73.9
E
69.3
E
0.78
41.8
1.00
9.8
51.6
D
0.69
40.8
1.00
2.7
43.4
D
46.2
D
1.00
58
0
0
36
5
2%
47.1
0.81
120.0
90.3%
15
Coddingtown Target
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3172
0.95
3172
1.00
547
0
547
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
6
50.6
49.9
0.42
3.7
3.0
1408
0.28
0.66
28.3
0.90
1.8
27.1
C
46.8
D
1.00
392
0
0
18
5
2%
1.00
149
0
0
36
5
2%
D
17.6
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
11
1364
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
4867
1.00
4867
1.00
1364
0
1364
2%
NA
2
648
1900
12
452
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
370
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
452
0
452
2%
Prot
1
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
370
0
203
2%
Split
4
42
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.96
1741
0.96
1741
1.00
42
0
209
2%
NA
4
442
1900
12
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
648
356
292
2%
Perm
1408
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1408
0
1408
2%
NA
6
20.8
20.1
0.17
3.7
3.0
550
c0.14
76.2
75.5
0.63
3.7
3.0
2131
c0.42
36.4
35.7
0.30
3.7
3.0
512
0.12
36.4
35.7
0.30
3.7
3.0
518
0.12
0.82
48.2
1.52
5.7
79.0
E
0.66
14.1
0.32
1.0
5.4
A
23.3
C
0.40
33.6
1.00
0.5
34.1
C
0.40
33.6
1.00
0.5
34.2
C
46.5
D
1.00
0
0
0
2%
51.7
51.0
0.42
3.7
3.0
2068
0.28
0.66
27.6
0.54
1.3
16.3
B
17.7
B
Coddingtown Target
2
51.7
51.0
0.42
3.7
3.0
666
0.19
0.44
24.4
0.79
1.6
20.9
C
25.1
0.75
120.0
128.0%
15
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
0.0
A
C
8.8
H
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
442
30
412
2%
Perm
4
36.4
35.7
0.30
3.7
3.0
466
c0.26
0.89
40.2
1.00
17.9
58.1
E
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
11
996
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
4867
1.00
4867
1.00
996
0
996
2%
NA
2
808
1900
12
322
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
190
1900
13
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
322
0
322
2%
Prot
1
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
190
0
95
2%
Split
4
0
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
0
0
95
2%
NA
4
485
1900
12
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
808
412
396
2%
Perm
1313
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1313
0
1313
2%
NA
6
16.2
15.5
0.13
3.7
3.0
424
c0.10
75.8
75.1
0.63
3.7
3.0
2120
c0.39
36.8
36.1
0.30
3.7
3.0
517
0.06
36.8
36.1
0.30
3.7
3.0
517
0.06
0.76
50.4
1.34
6.2
73.7
E
0.62
13.7
0.31
1.1
5.3
A
18.8
B
0.18
31.0
1.00
0.2
31.2
C
0.18
31.0
1.00
0.2
31.2
C
57.7
E
1.00
0
0
0
2%
55.9
55.2
0.46
3.7
3.0
2239
0.20
0.44
22.0
0.53
0.4
12.0
B
21.7
C
2
55.9
55.2
0.46
3.7
3.0
721
0.25
0.55
23.4
1.36
2.0
33.8
C
26.5
0.73
120.0
132.4%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
0.0
A
C
8.8
H
4.4
1.00
0.85
1.00
1567
1.00
1567
1.00
485
42
443
2%
Perm
4
36.8
36.1
0.30
3.7
3.0
471
c0.28
0.94
40.9
1.00
27.2
68.1
E
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
510
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
1173
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.96
1.00
4693
1.00
4693
1.00
1173
46
1494
2%
NA
6
367
1900
16
713
1900
13
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
713
0
399
2%
Split
8
0
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.91
0.97
0.96
1615
0.96
1615
1.00
0
8
391
2%
NA
8
449
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
510
0
510
2%
Prot
5
1183
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
1183
0
1183
2%
NA
2
24.3
23.6
0.20
3.7
3.0
646
c0.16
76.5
75.8
0.63
3.7
3.0
2139
0.35
48.5
47.8
0.40
3.7
3.0
1869
c0.32
36.1
35.4
0.29
3.7
3.0
507
0.23
36.1
35.4
0.29
3.7
3.0
476
c0.24
0.79
45.8
0.90
4.8
46.1
D
0.55
12.5
0.22
0.9
3.6
A
16.4
B
0.80
31.9
0.91
3.4
32.4
C
32.4
C
0.79
38.8
1.00
7.9
46.7
D
0.82
39.3
1.00
10.8
50.2
D
46.4
D
Coddingtown Target
1.00
0
0
0
2%
29.9
0.80
120.0
128.0%
15
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
367
0
0
2%
4.4
0.95
0.85
1.00
1489
1.00
1489
1.00
449
61
303
2%
Perm
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
8
36.1
35.4
0.29
3.7
3.0
439
0.20
0.69
37.4
1.00
4.5
41.9
D
0.0
A
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
390
1900
11
0
1900
11
0
1900
12
897
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.91
0.98
1.00
4745
1.00
4745
1.00
897
24
1052
2%
NA
6
179
1900
16
798
1900
13
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
2%
0
1900
12
4.4
0.95
1.00
0.95
1720
0.95
1720
1.00
798
0
415
2%
Split
8
0
1900
13
2%
4.4
0.91
0.99
0.96
1637
0.96
1637
1.00
0
3
415
2%
NA
8
350
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
390
0
390
2%
Prot
5
795
1900
11
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
3387
1.00
3387
1.00
795
0
795
2%
NA
2
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
0
0
0
2%
20.3
19.6
0.16
3.7
3.0
537
c0.12
69.7
69.0
0.58
3.7
3.0
1948
0.23
45.7
45.0
0.38
3.7
3.0
1779
c0.22
42.9
42.2
0.35
3.7
3.0
605
0.24
42.9
42.2
0.35
3.7
3.0
576
c0.25
0.73
47.7
1.05
4.4
54.7
D
0.41
14.2
0.49
0.6
7.6
A
23.1
C
0.59
30.1
0.81
1.4
25.8
C
25.8
C
0.69
33.2
1.00
3.2
36.5
D
0.72
33.8
1.00
4.4
38.2
D
35.3
D
C
13.2
H
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
1.00
0
0
0
2%
28.0
0.67
120.0
132.4%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
0
0
0
2%
1.00
179
0
0
2%
4.4
0.95
0.85
1.00
1489
1.00
1489
1.00
350
104
211
2%
Perm
8
42.9
42.2
0.35
3.7
3.0
524
0.14
0.40
29.4
1.00
0.5
29.9
C
0.0
A
C
13.2
H
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
249
1900
11
284
1900
16
18
1900
12
264
1900
11
33
1900
11
1.00
284
0
0
22
1900
12
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1791
1.00
1791
1.00
22
0
22
477
1900
11
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1497
0.95
1497
1.00
264
0
132
23
1900
12
2%
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.96
3070
0.96
3070
1.00
23
11
169
25
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1702
0.95
1702
1.00
18
0
18
839
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5009
1.00
5009
1.00
839
3
862
26
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
249
0
249
1091
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
3375
1.00
3375
1.00
1091
14
1361
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
5%
5%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
5%
Split
3
5%
NA
3
25.1
24.4
0.20
3.7
3.0
668
0.08
82.6
81.9
0.68
3.7
3.0
2303
c0.40
2.4
2.4
0.02
3.0
2.0
34
c0.01
59.2
58.5
0.49
3.7
3.0
2442
0.17
14.9
14.9
0.12
3.0
2.0
186
c0.09
14.9
14.9
0.12
3.0
2.0
381
0.05
6.7
6.0
0.05
3.7
3.0
85
0.02
0.37
41.2
0.89
0.3
37.2
D
0.59
10.1
0.63
0.9
7.2
A
11.8
B
0.53
58.2
1.00
6.7
64.9
E
0.35
19.0
1.00
0.4
19.4
B
20.4
C
0.71
50.5
1.00
9.7
60.2
E
0.44
48.7
1.00
0.3
49.0
D
53.7
D
0.39
55.2
1.00
2.9
58.1
E
Coddingtown Target
22.6
0.60
120.0
67.7%
15
1.00
26
0
0
6
2%
1.00
25
0
0
6
5%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
33
0
33
2%
Split
4
4.4
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
2667
1.00
2667
1.00
477
146
331
5%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
6.7
31.8
6.0
30.4
0.05
0.25
3.7
3.7
3.0
3.0
90
676
0.01 c0.10
0.02
0.24
0.49
54.8
38.2
1.00
1.00
1.4
0.6
56.2
38.7
E
D
40.7
D
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Grade (%)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
C
14.8
C
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
216
1900
11
108
1900
16
9
1900
12
98
1900
11
44
1900
11
1.00
108
0
0
20
1900
12
2%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1791
1.00
1791
1.00
20
0
20
271
1900
11
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1497
0.95
1497
1.00
98
0
49
9
1900
12
2%
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.97
3035
0.97
3035
1.00
9
16
59
17
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1702
0.95
1702
1.00
9
0
9
789
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
4984
1.00
4984
1.00
789
4
835
50
1900
12
4.4
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3285
0.95
3285
1.00
216
0
216
936
1900
12
2%
4.4
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
3439
1.00
3439
1.00
936
4
1040
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
5%
5%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
5%
Split
3
5%
NA
3
21.7
21.0
0.18
3.7
3.0
575
0.07
90.5
89.8
0.75
3.7
3.0
2574
c0.30
1.3
1.3
0.01
3.0
2.0
18
c0.01
69.4
68.7
0.57
3.7
3.0
2853
0.17
7.4
7.4
0.06
3.0
2.0
92
c0.03
7.4
7.4
0.06
3.0
2.0
187
0.02
7.4
6.7
0.06
3.7
3.0
95
c0.03
0.38
43.7
0.81
0.4
35.7
D
0.40
5.4
0.47
0.4
3.0
A
8.6
A
0.50
59.0
1.00
7.7
66.8
E
0.29
13.2
1.00
0.3
13.4
B
14.0
B
0.53
54.6
1.00
2.9
57.6
E
0.32
53.9
1.00
0.4
54.2
D
55.6
E
0.46
54.9
1.00
3.5
58.5
E
16.8
0.42
120.0
54.0%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
50
0
0
6
2%
1.00
17
0
0
6
5%
4.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1694
0.95
1694
1.00
44
0
44
2%
Split
4
4.4
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
2667
1.00
2667
1.00
271
208
63
5%
2%
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
7.4
29.1
6.7
27.7
0.06
0.23
3.7
3.7
3.0
3.0
100
616
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.20
0.10
54.1
36.3
1.00
1.00
1.0
0.1
55.1
36.4
E
D
40.4
D
B
14.8
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
225
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.95
1719
1.00
225
0
225
NA
4
57
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
57
47
10
Perm
69
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.44
797
1.00
69
0
69
pm+pt
5
2
93.8
93.8
0.78
3.0
2.0
660
0.00
0.08
0.10
3.5
0.82
0.0
2.9
A
295
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
295
0
295
NA
2
447
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
447
0
447
NA
6
279
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
279
79
200
Perm
93.8
93.8
0.78
3.0
2.0
1415
c0.16
86.0
86.0
0.72
3.0
2.0
1297
c0.25
0.21
3.4
0.72
0.3
2.8
A
2.8
A
0.34
6.4
1.52
0.4
10.1
B
11.6
B
20.2
20.2
0.17
3.0
2.0
289
c0.13
0.78
47.8
1.00
11.4
59.2
E
55.6
E
4
20.2
20.2
0.17
3.0
2.0
259
0.01
0.04
41.8
1.00
0.0
41.8
D
Coddingtown Target
18.3
0.42
120.0
49.8%
15
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
6
86.0
86.0
0.72
3.0
2.0
1102
0.13
0.18
5.5
2.50
0.2
14.0
B
B
9.0
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
312
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.95
1719
1.00
312
0
312
NA
4
76
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
76
60
16
Perm
97
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.44
798
1.00
97
0
97
pm+pt
5
2
88.4
88.4
0.74
3.0
2.0
638
0.01
0.10
0.15
5.1
1.19
0.0
6.1
A
307
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
307
0
307
NA
2
415
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
415
0
415
NA
6
397
1900
3.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1538
1.00
1538
1.00
397
136
261
Perm
88.4
88.4
0.74
3.0
2.0
1333
c0.17
78.9
78.9
0.66
3.0
2.0
1190
c0.23
0.23
5.0
1.21
0.4
6.4
A
6.4
A
0.35
9.1
0.40
0.3
4.0
A
6.2
A
25.6
25.6
0.21
3.0
2.0
367
c0.18
4/9/2012
0.85
45.4
1.00
16.3
61.7
E
57.0
E
4
25.6
25.6
0.21
3.0
2.0
328
0.01
0.05
37.5
1.00
0.0
37.5
D
18.5
0.46
120.0
54.5%
15
Coddingtown Target
6
78.9
78.9
0.66
3.0
2.0
1011
0.17
0.26
8.5
0.96
0.2
8.4
A
B
9.0
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
EBL
EBT
15
1.00
15
Stop
8
1.00
8
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total (vph)
Volume Left (vph)
Volume Right (vph)
Hadj (s)
Capacity (veh/h)
Control Delay (s)
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EB 1
60
15
37
-0.23
4.5
0.08
731
7.9
7.9
A
WB 1
26
4
12
-0.16
4.6
0.03
708
7.8
7.8
A
Delay
Coddingtown Target
EBR
WBL
WBT
37
1.00
37
4
1.00
4
Stop
10
1.00
10
NB 1
32
32
0
0.58
5.5
0.05
639
7.5
7.6
A
NB 2
104
0
2
0.07
4.9
0.14
705
7.6
8.3
A
31.4%
15
4/9/2012
WBR
12
1.00
12
NBL
NBT
32
1.00
32
Stop
102
1.00
102
NBR
2
1.00
2
SBL
SBT
19
1.00
19
Stop
177
1.00
177
SBR
23
1.00
23
SB 1
219
19
23
0.04
4.4
0.27
791
9.0
9.0
A
Movement
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
EBL
EBT
13
1.00
13
Stop
3
1.00
3
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total (vph)
Volume Left (vph)
Volume Right (vph)
Hadj (s)
Capacity (veh/h)
Control Delay (s)
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EB 1
38
13
22
-0.19
4.4
0.05
752
7.6
7.6
A
WB 1
25
4
15
-0.24
4.4
0.03
756
7.5
7.5
A
Delay
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
EBR
WBL
WBT
22
1.00
22
4
1.00
4
Stop
6
1.00
6
NB 1
22
22
0
0.58
5.4
0.03
653
7.3
7.4
A
NB 2
94
0
1
0.08
4.9
0.13
721
7.4
8.0
A
28.0%
15
Coddingtown Target
4/9/2012
WBR
15
1.00
15
NBL
NBT
22
1.00
22
Stop
93
1.00
93
NBR
1
1.00
1
SBL
SBT
SBR
17
1.00
17
Stop
150
1.00
150
14
1.00
14
SB 1
181
17
14
0.06
4.3
0.22
815
8.5
8.5
A
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
19
Stop
0%
1.00
19
26
24
1.00
24
440
Free
0%
1.00
440
15
1.00
26
355
Free
0%
1.00
355
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
1.00
15
6
TWLTL TWLTL
2
2
1312
1274
850
448
403
850
6.9
5.9
3.5
96
491
228
455
228
7.0
455
4.2
3.3
97
766
2.2
98
1081
EB 1
45
19
26
1163
0.04
3
11.0
B
11.0
B
NB 1
24
24
0
1081
0.02
2
8.4
A
0.5
NB 2
355
0
0
1700
0.21
0
0.0
Average Delay
Coddingtown Target
SB 1
293
0
0
1700
0.17
0
0.0
SB 2
162
0
15
1700
0.10
0
0.0
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
0.0
0.8
29.3%
15
Average Delay
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
13
Stop
0%
1.00
13
20
20
1.00
20
500
Free
0%
1.00
500
16
1.00
20
371
Free
0%
1.00
371
1.00
16
6
TWLTL TWLTL
2
2
1312
1274
919
508
411
919
6.9
5.9
3.5
97
466
258
516
258
7.0
516
4.2
3.3
97
732
2.2
98
1025
EB 1
33
13
20
1182
0.03
2
11.2
B
11.2
B
NB 1
20
20
0
1025
0.02
1
8.6
A
0.4
NB 2
371
0
0
1700
0.22
0
0.0
SB 1
333
0
0
1700
0.20
0
0.0
SB 2
183
0
16
1700
0.11
0
0.0
0.0
0.6
29.5%
15
Coddingtown Target
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
4/9/2012
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
11
230
1900
1900
3.0
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
1.00
1.00
11
230
0
216
11
14
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
1.4
7.2
1.4
7.2
0.01
0.06
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
20
131
c0.01
0.01
0.00
0.55
0.11
59.0
53.4
1.00
1.00
17.2
0.1
76.2
53.5
E
D
54.5
D
129
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.46
839
1.00
129
0
129
pm+pt
5
2
112.6
112.6
0.94
3.0
2.0
830
0.01
0.14
0.16
0.3
1.32
0.0
0.4
A
373
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
373
0
373
NA
2
474
1900
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
3430
1.00
3430
1.00
474
0
482
NA
6
8
1900
112.6
112.6
0.94
3.0
2.0
1698
c0.21
103.8
103.8
0.86
3.0
2.0
2967
0.14
0.22
0.3
1.39
0.3
0.7
A
0.6
A
0.16
1.3
0.16
0.1
0.3
A
0.3
A
Coddingtown Target
11.1
0.22
120.0
34.3%
15
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
1.00
8
0
0
B
6.0
A
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
14
175
1900
1900
3.0
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
0.95
1.00
1719
1538
1.00
1.00
14
175
0
164
14
11
NA pm+ov
4
5
4
2.7
7.7
2.7
7.7
0.02
0.06
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
39
137
c0.01
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.08
57.8
52.8
1.00
1.00
2.1
0.1
59.9
52.9
E
D
53.4
D
107
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1719
0.44
802
1.00
107
0
107
pm+pt
5
2
111.3
111.3
0.93
3.0
2.0
782
0.01
0.12
0.14
0.4
0.21
0.0
0.1
A
382
1900
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1810
1.00
1810
1.00
382
0
382
NA
2
507
1900
3.0
0.95
0.99
1.00
3418
1.00
3418
1.00
507
1
527
NA
6
21
1900
111.3
111.3
0.93
3.0
2.0
1679
c0.21
103.3
103.3
0.86
3.0
2.0
2942
0.15
0.23
0.4
0.28
0.3
0.4
A
0.3
A
0.18
1.4
0.20
0.1
0.4
A
0.4
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
8.7
0.23
120.0
33.9%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
21
0
0
A
6.0
A
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
106
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
106
0
106
1066
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
3512
1.00
3512
1.00
1066
2
1103
39
1900
14
79
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
79
0
79
921
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
921
0
921
38
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
38
0
38
155
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.95
1.00
1759
1.00
1759
1.00
155
14
213
72
1900
12
396
1900
11
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3319
0.95
3319
1.00
396
0
396
22
1900
14
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.87
1.00
1686
1.00
1686
1.00
22
84
61
123
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Prot
3
2%
NA
8
2%
Prot
7
2%
NA
4
11.8
11.8
0.10
3.0
3.0
174
0.06
57.2
57.2
0.48
3.0
3.0
1674
c0.31
9.6
9.6
0.08
3.0
3.0
142
0.04
55.0
55.0
0.46
3.0
3.0
1676
c0.25
3.6
3.6
0.03
3.0
3.0
53
0.02
20.0
20.0
0.17
3.0
3.0
293
c0.12
21.2
21.2
0.18
3.0
3.0
586
c0.12
37.6
37.6
0.31
3.0
3.0
528
0.04
0.61
51.9
1.00
5.9
57.8
E
0.66
24.0
1.00
2.0
26.0
C
28.8
C
0.56
53.1
0.79
4.4
46.4
D
0.55
23.5
0.61
1.2
15.6
B
16.9
B
268
1900
13
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
1.00
1591
1.00
1591
1.00
268
32
236
4
6
2%
pm+ov
7
6
76.2
76.2
0.64
3.0
3.0
1050
0.04
0.11
0.22
9.3
1.31
0.1
12.3
B
0.72
57.7
1.00
36.9
94.6
F
0.73
47.4
1.00
8.7
56.1
E
61.6
E
0.68
46.2
0.94
3.0
46.6
D
0.11
29.3
1.80
0.1
52.9
D
48.3
D
Coddingtown Target
1.00
39
0
0
8
6
2%
30.0
0.66
120.0
72.4%
15
1.00
72
0
0
4
6
2%
C
9.0
C
1.00
123
0
0
8
6
2%
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
90
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
90
0
90
685
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
3499
1.00
3499
1.00
685
3
720
38
1900
14
61
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
61
0
61
621
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
621
0
621
33
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
33
0
33
120
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.94
1.00
1735
1.00
1735
1.00
120
20
176
76
1900
12
382
1900
11
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3319
0.95
3319
1.00
382
0
382
165
1900
14
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.94
1.00
1833
1.00
1833
1.00
165
25
264
124
1900
14
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
2%
Prot
3
2%
NA
8
2%
Prot
7
2%
NA
4
11.4
11.4
0.10
3.0
3.0
168
c0.05
59.5
59.5
0.50
3.0
3.0
1735
c0.21
8.8
8.8
0.07
3.0
3.0
130
c0.03
56.9
56.9
0.47
3.0
3.0
1734
0.17
4.7
4.7
0.04
3.0
3.0
69
0.02
18.4
18.4
0.15
3.0
3.0
266
c0.10
21.3
21.3
0.18
3.0
3.0
589
c0.12
35.0
35.0
0.29
3.0
3.0
535
0.14
0.54
51.8
1.00
3.3
55.0
E
0.42
19.2
1.00
0.7
19.9
B
23.8
C
0.47
53.4
1.13
2.6
63.1
E
0.36
20.0
1.16
0.6
23.8
C
20.0
C
281
1900
13
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
1.00
1591
1.00
1591
1.00
281
44
237
4
6
2%
pm+ov
7
6
78.2
78.2
0.65
3.0
3.0
1077
0.04
0.11
0.22
8.5
0.25
0.1
2.3
A
0.48
56.4
1.00
5.1
61.6
E
0.66
47.9
1.00
6.0
53.9
D
55.0
D
0.65
45.9
0.85
2.4
41.6
D
0.49
35.2
0.83
0.7
29.9
C
36.6
D
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
1.00
38
0
0
8
6
2%
28.3
0.52
120.0
59.7%
15
Coddingtown Target
1.00
76
0
0
4
6
2%
1.00
124
0
0
8
6
2%
C
12.0
B
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
12
962
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
962
0
962
611
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.85
1.00
1488
1.00
1488
1.00
611
203
408
15
2%
Perm
506
1900
10
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3204
0.95
3204
1.00
506
0
506
975
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
975
0
975
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
31
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1812
0.96
1812
1.00
31
0
188
297
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1689
1.00
1689
1.00
297
154
143
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
341
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
341
0
184
2%
2%
2%
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
2%
Perm
23.6
23.6
0.20
3.0
3.0
630
c0.16
92.9
93.9
0.78
4.0
3.0
2862
0.27
20.1
20.1
0.17
3.0
3.0
300
0.10
20.1
20.1
0.17
3.0
3.0
304
c0.10
0.80
46.0
0.59
3.6
30.6
C
0.34
3.9
1.07
0.2
4.3
A
13.3
B
0.61
46.3
1.00
3.7
50.0
D
0.62
46.4
1.00
3.7
50.1
D
48.6
D
1.00
0
0
0
2%
2%
NA
2
66.3
67.3
0.56
4.0
3.0
1985
0.27
0.48
15.9
0.79
0.7
13.3
B
19.0
B
Coddingtown Target
2
66.3
67.3
0.56
4.0
3.0
835
c0.27
0.49
15.9
1.65
1.6
27.9
C
22.0
0.58
120.0
84.4%
15
0.0
A
C
9.0
E
4
20.1
20.1
0.17
3.0
3.0
283
0.08
0.51
45.4
1.00
1.4
46.8
D
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0
1900
12
626
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
626
0
626
515
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.85
1.00
1488
1.00
1488
1.00
515
186
329
15
2%
Perm
455
1900
10
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3204
0.95
3204
1.00
455
0
455
805
1900
13
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3657
1.00
3657
1.00
805
0
805
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
0
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
0
0
123
176
1900
14
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1689
1.00
1689
1.00
176
155
21
2%
Prot
1
2%
NA
6
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
245
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
245
0
122
2%
2%
2%
2%
Split
4
2%
NA
4
2%
Perm
22.5
22.5
0.19
3.0
3.0
601
c0.14
98.7
99.7
0.83
4.0
3.0
3038
0.22
14.3
14.3
0.12
3.0
3.0
214
0.07
14.3
14.3
0.12
3.0
3.0
214
c0.07
0.76
46.2
0.51
4.4
27.7
C
0.26
2.2
1.64
0.2
3.8
A
12.4
B
0.57
49.9
1.00
3.6
53.6
D
0.57
50.0
1.00
3.7
53.7
D
51.0
D
1.00
0
0
0
2%
2%
NA
2
73.2
74.2
0.62
4.0
3.0
2188
0.18
0.29
10.6
0.84
0.3
9.2
A
13.1
B
2
73.2
74.2
0.62
4.0
3.0
920
c0.22
0.36
11.2
1.50
1.0
17.8
B
18.4
0.47
120.0
66.5%
15
Coddingtown Target
0.0
A
B
9.0
C
4
14.3
14.3
0.12
3.0
3.0
201
0.01
0.10
47.1
1.00
0.2
47.4
D
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
244
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
244
0
244
1061
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
1061
0
1061
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
447
1900
13
0
1900
14
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.98
1614
0.98
1614
1.00
0
45
235
438
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1604
1.00
1604
1.00
438
116
156
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
406
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
406
0
292
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
1103
1900
13
3.0
0.95
0.98
1.00
0.96
1.00
3442
1.00
3442
1.00
1103
37
1513
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
2%
Perm
2%
2%
2%
25.3
25.3
0.21
3.0
3.0
373
c0.14
87.5
88.5
0.74
4.0
3.0
2610
0.30
59.2
60.2
0.50
4.0
3.0
1727
c0.44
25.5
25.5
0.21
3.0
3.0
381
c0.16
25.5
25.5
0.21
3.0
3.0
343
0.15
0.65
43.3
0.77
3.6
37.2
D
0.41
5.9
0.84
0.4
5.4
A
11.3
B
0.88
26.6
0.37
5.9
15.7
B
15.7
B
0.77
44.4
1.00
8.9
53.4
D
0.69
43.6
1.00
5.6
49.1
D
48.4
D
Coddingtown Target
21.6
0.80
120.0
84.4%
15
2%
2%
NA
6
1.00
447
0
0
15
2%
8
25.5
25.5
0.21
3.0
3.0
341
0.10
0.46
41.2
1.00
1.0
42.2
D
0.0
A
C
9.0
E
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
4/9/2012
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
137
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
1.00
137
0
137
734
1900
12
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539
1.00
734
0
734
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
289
1900
13
19
1900
14
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.98
1629
0.98
1629
1.00
19
39
186
335
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1604
1.00
1604
1.00
335
170
41
0
1900
12
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
316
1900
14
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1793
0.95
1793
1.00
316
0
234
0
1900
12
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
2%
Prot
5
2%
NA
2
1.00
0
0
0
15
2%
911
1900
13
3.0
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.96
1.00
3477
1.00
3477
1.00
911
29
1171
2%
Split
8
2%
NA
8
2%
Perm
2%
2%
2%
32.8
32.8
0.27
3.0
3.0
484
0.08
89.6
90.6
0.75
4.0
3.0
2672
c0.21
53.8
54.8
0.46
4.0
3.0
1588
c0.34
23.4
23.4
0.19
3.0
3.0
350
c0.13
23.4
23.4
0.19
3.0
3.0
318
0.11
0.28
34.3
1.37
0.3
47.2
D
0.27
4.5
1.36
0.2
6.4
A
12.8
B
0.74
26.7
0.18
2.5
7.4
A
7.4
A
0.67
44.7
1.00
4.8
49.5
D
0.58
43.9
1.00
2.7
46.6
D
45.6
D
18.4
0.58
120.0
66.5%
15
Coddingtown Target
2%
2%
NA
6
1.00
289
0
0
15
2%
8
23.4
23.4
0.19
3.0
3.0
313
0.03
0.13
39.9
1.00
0.2
40.1
D
0.0
A
B
6.0
C
Synchro 8 - Report
W-Trans
Appendix C
Future Growth Rate Derivation
April 2012
Trip Generation
8th Edition
Number Units
Land Use
Land Use
of Units
Number
No./Type
General Plan Growth
520
units
210
Single Family Housing (Attached/Detached)
2421
units
220
Apartment
802.5 ksf
710
General Office Building
430.2 ksf
814
Specialty Retail
187
ksf
820
Shopping Center
100.1 ksf
Inst
Institutional (from SCTA model)
-22.7
ksf
150
Warehousing
151.5 ksf
130
Industrial Park
General Plan Growth Total
Specific Plan Growth
438
units
210
Single Family Housing (Attached/Detached)
1276
units
220
Apartment
798.6 ksf
710
General Office Building
350.2 ksf
814
Specialty Retail
187
ksf
820
Shopping Center
97.6
ksf
Inst
Institutional (from SCTA model)
-22.7
ksf
150
Warehousing
-34
ksf
130
Industrial Park
350
parking
SANDAG SMART Station
Mixed Use Internal Capture
Specific Plan Growth Total
Total (GP + SP)
Ratio of weekend to weekday
peak hour trips:
80%
PM PEAK
MIDDAY PEAK
Trip Rate Number Trip Rate Number
per Unit of Trips per Unit of Trips
1.01
0.62
1.49
2.71
3.73
0.91
0.32
0.86
525
1501
1196
1166
698
91
-7
130
5299
0.93
0.52
0.41
2.57
4.89
0.84
0.13
0.35
484
1259
329
1106
914
84
-3
53
4226
1.01
0.62
1.49
2.71
3.73
0.91
0.32
0.86
0.30
442
791
1190
949
698
89
-7
-29
105
-752
3475
8774
0.93
0.52
0.41
2.57
4.89
0.84
0.13
0.35
0.30
407
664
327
900
914
82
-3
-12
105
-609
2775
7001
Int
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PM E Vol PM F Vol
2976
4380
2470
3846
4221
6694
4438
6464
4234
5518
3330
4423
1043
1826
424
891
849
1842
1178
2313
3238
4486
3686
4031
3683
4175
PM
Factor
1.47
1.56
1.59
1.46
1.30
1.33
1.75
2.10
2.17
1.96
1.39
1.09
1.00
WE
Factor
1.38
1.44
1.47
1.36
1.24
1.26
1.60
1.88
1.93
1.77
1.31
1.07
1.00
Appendix D
Shared Parking Summary
April 2012
Table
Project: Target
Description:
4/9/2012
SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Land Use
Super Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf)
Employee
Office 25 to 100 ksf
Employee
Project Data
Quantity
Unit
825,363 sf GLA
30,520 sf GLA
Base
Rate
3.20
0.80
0.30
3.47
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -Weekday
NonMode
Captive Project
Adj
Ratio
Rate
Unit
0.95
0.90
2.74
/ksf GLA
0.95
0.90
0.68
/ksf GLA
1.00
1.00
0.30
/ksf GLA
1.00
1.00
3.47
/ksf GLA
PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKEND
Weekend
NonBase
Mode
Captive Project
Rate
Adj
Ratio
Rate
3.60
0.95
0.90
3.08
0.90
0.95
0.90
0.77
0.03
1.00
1.00
0.03
0.35
1.00
1.00
0.35
Unit
/ksf GLA
/ksf GLA
/ksf GLA
/ksf GLA
Weekday
Peak Hr
Peak Mo
Adj
Adj
2 PM
December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Customer
Employee
Reserved
Total
Estimated
Parking
Demand
2,258
564
9
106
2267
670
0
2937
Weekend
Peak Hr
Peak Mo
Adj
Adj
2 PM
December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.60
1.00
0.60
1.00
Customer
Employee
Reserved
Total
Estimated
Parking
Demand
2,540
635
1
7
2541
642
0
3183

CODDINGTOWN TARGET STORE

Transcription

Similar documents

parkpoint health club - Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce

Event Poster

Devour - Roto Grip

Brochure

10x10 Oct 11 Newsline Ad Santa`s Arrival

1947

AWESOME VILLA IN SANTA PONSA

November 2014 - West End Neighborhood

SKATING COACH TO THE NHL STARS!!!

La Fonda on the Plaza